Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "The Gospel according to St. Luke [microform] ; the Greek text with introduction, notes, and indices"

See other formats








I l n 


THE "0SPM>V:,:. ' ' 

_&_ . M. 1 . . Ji.^J x_^ V^/ N-x J J -^ , 1 , J\, r 



tine*" -*< 
* rr#n t c 
> ' * " " fnnnn*tn o r r i 










^ \ 







THE study of the Gospels appears to have entered upon a new phase. 
The ' source criticism ' which proved so fruitful in the last century 
has perhaps little more to teach us. The more recent work is rather 
concerned with the attempt to grasp the needs and circumstances 
which, in the first generation, brought about the translation of the 
memories and impressions of the first believers into literary forms of 
narrative and discourse, and, in the second, consolidated the tradi- 
tional material into the finished type of Gospel. Although I have not 
infrequently had occasion to criticise and to reject the conclusions of 
Rudolf Bultmann and of Karl Ludwig Schmidt, I am conscious that 
these scholars have influenced me not a little. But the critic to 
whom I owe most is Julius Wellhausen. In his brief and pregnant 
commentaries and in the accompanying volume of Introduction are 
to be found the seeds of most of the more important developments of 
recent years. Besides the works of the scholars whom I have just 
named, the commentaries of Klostermann, Johannes Weiss, Loisy, 
Montefiore, as well as Canon Streeter's The Four Gospels and Sir John 
Hawkins' Home Synopticae, have been constantly at hand. 

I have devoted more space than is customary in an Introduction 
to the history of the interpretation. It is certainly interesting and, 
I think, important to place the study of the Gospels as it is to-day 
against the background of the long history from which it has emerged. 
The Marcan sections of the Gospel have been more briefly treated 
than the rest ; I have as a rule not done much more in these parts 

of the Gospel than call attention to Luke's treatment of the Marcan 



source. It did not seem worth while to do again in a commentary on 
St. Luke what has recently been well done by Dr. Rawlinson in a 
commentary on St. Mark. 

Some personal obligations call for especial mention. To the late 
Professor H. B. Swete I owe it that I was entrusted with this work. 
Although he was no longer alive when I began seriously to work on 
the Gospel, his advice and encouragement at the first undertaking 
have always been gratefully remembered. I have repeatedly resorted 
to Professor Burkitt, and I am indebted to him for many suggestions 
and much wise counsel. Mr. A. D. Nock has drawn my attention 
to articles in periodicals, which otherwise would have escaped me. 
In the laborious tasks of correcting proofs and verifying references 
I have received great help from my wife and from my father. 
Lastly, I wish to pay a tribute to the accuracy, scholarship, and 
efficiency of Messrs. H. & R. Clark's readers and workmen. 

J. M. C. 

January 1930. 




I. The Book, its Author, and its Date . . . ... xi 

II. History of the Gospel and of its Interpretation 

(i.) The Gospel in the Second Century .... xxv 

(ii.) The Age of the Fathers ...... xxxii 

(iii.) From the Sixth Century to the End of the Middle Age xxxvii 

(iv.) From the Renaissance to the Rise of Historical Criticism xl 

(v.) From the Rise of the Critical Study of the Gospels . . xliv 

III. The Composition and the Sources of St. Luke's Gospel . . Ivi 

IV. Theological Ideas . . . . . . . Ixxi 

V. Language, Style, and Vocabulary ...... Ixxvi 

VI. Text . . . . Ixxxv 

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ........ ixxxvii 

ABBREVIATIONS .......... xc 



Magnificat and Benedictus ....... 303 

Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene ....... 307 

The Baptism of John ........ 309 

The Appearance of the Risen Jesus to the Disciples . . . 314 
St. Luke and St. John . . . . . . . .318 

INDEX OP GREEK WORDS ........ 323 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS ......... 339 





THE Gospel according to St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles 
form two parts of a single historical work. The former gives an 
account of the birth, life, death, and exaltation of Jesus Christ; the 
latter traces the expansion of the Christian faith from its Palestinian 
home to the chief centres of the Graeco-Roman world, and culmin- 
ates in the preaching of the Gospel at Rome by Paul. The author 
in his preface (Luke i. 1-4), which is probably intended to cover the 
entire work and not the Gospel alone, states it as his purpose to 
write an orderly narrative (KaOe^ ypdtyai,) of what has been 
brought to fulfilment within the Christian body to which he belongs. 
The order which the writer intends is probably to be understood as 
chronological and historical order. The Book of Acts is a sequel to 
the Gospel, and both Gospel and Acts fall internally into consecutive 
divisions. But it is only with considerable reserves that the Acts 
can be regarded as a continuation of the Gospel. The Gospel is a 
unity in itself. It is more than the first part of a continuous story, 
for the rejection of Jesus the Christ by the Jews and his vindication 
by God as Lord and Saviour, which are recorded in the Gospel, 
provide the very content of the preaching whose expansion through- 
out the world is recorded in the second book. To the evangelist, 
as to all Christians, the death and resurrection of Jesus made an 
end and a beginning. The avd\r)^i^ of Jesus divides and unites 

the two books, which are not only consecutive but also inter- 

xi b 



dependent. 1 The interpretation of either part must take account of 
the theme of the other. The Gospel was the first to be written ; but 
when it was written, the author must have been already acquainted 
with the general course of events which he relates in Acts, and 
many distinctive features of the Gospel find their true setting in 
the completed whole. The evangelist looks back upon the Gospel 
history across the events which he is to relate in the Acts of the 
Apostles. So also in the Acts of the Apostles the Gospel narrative 
is presupposed. True it is but seldom referred to, but the Christ 

events from the beginning of the 
Gospel to the end of Acts as a con- 
tinuous historical series, as Diodorus 
Siculus regarded the history of the 
world. But in Luke's view Acts 
does not simply resume the thread of 
an interrupted narrative. The true 
relation of the expansion of the 
Church to Jesus and his history is 
admirably brought out by the story 
of the Ascension. This story is very 
awkwardly tacked on to the opening 
sentence,and the awkwardness has per- 
haps been increased by some textual 
corruption. But the real source of 
the awkwardness lies in a certain 
incongruity between Luke's literary 
models and the theme with which 
he has to deal. The charge of Jesus 
to the apostles provides the substance 
of the missing Se. clause : this book 
is to tell how the chosen apostles 
were witnesses to Jesus in Jerusalem, 
Judaea, Samaria, and to the end of 
the earth. It is true that the eleven 
apostles play very little part in the 
story that follows, but to Luke they 
are ideal and representative figures, 
who link together the company 
which was with Jesus on earth and 
the society which still looked for him 
to return from heaven. Luke's his- 
tory of the Church is theologically 
conceived, with the uvu.X.rjfjiif/i's of 
Jesus in the past and his Trapovcria 

rov HavX.ov. This would be in the future as the determining 
excellent if Luke had thought of the factors. 

1 This relation between the two 
parts of Luke's work perhaps points 
the way to the explanation of the 
literary awkwardness of the intro- 
duction to Acts. Norden (Agnostos 
ThRos, pp. 3 1 3 f . ) and Meyer ( Ursprung 
u. Anfange, i. pp. 34 f.), approaching 
Acts with classical models in their 
minds, stumble at the incomplete 
preface of Acts and conjecture that 
the narrative of the Ascension is an 
interpolation which has displaced a 
<3e clause answering to the rov /xei/ 
irpwrov X,6yov of u. I. Without doubt 
the preface of Luke i. 1-4 and the 
partial preface of Acts i. I are to 
be classified with the customary pre- 
faces of contemporary writers ; and if 
Luke had carried through consistently 
the role of a Greek man of letters, he 
would have completed Acts i. i with 
an outline of the contents of the next 
volume. But Luke was first a 
Christian, and he writes history as a 
theologian and a believer. The con- 
ventional preface would have obscured 
the relation of the story of the words 
and works of Jesus to the story of the 
spread of the Gospel. Norden makes 
the following conjectural completion 
of the preface to Acts : vvvl Se TU 
crvve^ij roi'rots, a re OUJTOS irapwv 
e5oi', a re Trap' a/YA.u>v tt<.o7rrrajv 
OI/TCOJ/ eTTvOo/Ji^v^ trvyypci\l/ 



whom, in the Acts, the Jews reject and the Gentiles accept is the 
same person as he whose preaching and healing are related in the 
Gospel, and we are intended throughout to bear in mind " the 
Kingdom of God and the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ " 
(Acts xxviii. 31). 


The authorship of this historical work is ascribed by tradition 
to the Luke who is described in the Epistle to the Colossians 1 as 
' the beloved physician,' and is there found as a companion of 
St. Paul in his imprisonment. It may be inferred from Col. iv. n 
that Luke the physician was of Gentile birth. According to 2 Tim. 
iv. 10 Luke was Paul's only companion who remained with him 
to the end. 

The earliest writer who definitely names Luke as the author of 
the two books Ad Theophilum is Irenaeus (c. A.D. 185). 2 But it is 
probable that the attribution was familiar to Justin in the middle 
of the second century. Without mentioning names of authors, 
Justin frequently refers to the Memoirs (^Airo/jLv^fjiovev/jLara) of 
the Apostles as authorities for the life and teaching of Christ, and 
examination of bis citations shews him to have used with especial 
frequency the first and third of the canonical Gospels. In Dial. 103. 
19 he says that the Memoirs were composed " by apostles and by 
those who followed them." There is every probability that by 
" those who followed the apostles " he meant Mark and Luke, 
and that he, like Irenaeus, regarded them as the disciples 
respectively of Peter and Paul. 

There is a presumption that the tradition is true. 'Luke the 
physician ' is not personally a prominent figure in the apostolic 
age, and, so far as we know, he was not prominent in early tradition. 
If the Gospel and Acts did not already pass under his name there 
is no obvious reason why tradition should have associated them 
with him. 3 He was not an apostle. There are certain difficulties 

1 Col. iv. 14 ; cf. also Philem. 24. of Luke-Acts, pp. 351 f.) thinks that 

Adv. Haeres. iii. i. 2. the ascription of these writings to 

3 Prof. Cadbury (Beginnings of Luke may be regarded as a critical 

Christianity, vol.ii.pp.zdoi. ; Making guess of the later second century, 



in accepting the tradition, which will be noted presently, but there 
is a very general agreement among scholars that the tradition either 
speaks truth or else is founded on truth. If the Lucan authorship 
of the existing work is called in question, it is generally held that 
the existing work incorporates some original writing by Luke. 

Prima facie the Acts of the Apostles gives us important infor- 
mation about its author. At xvi. 10 the narrative of St. Paul's 
first journey into Europe abruptly changes from the third person 
to the first person plural. The natural interpretation of this sudden 
change is that the author of the book himself joined the Apostle 
at this point. 1 The first person is discontinued after the arrival 

based on a combination of data in 
the books of the New Testament, 
and that at an earlier period the 
third Gospel and Acts had circulated 
anonymously. But the Lucan writ- 
ings are literary works with an in- 
dividual character of their own and 
an individual dedication. It is a 
priori probable that such a book was 
published under its author's name. 
Another objection to Dr. Cadbury's 
hypothesis is that the data which he 
suggests may have led to the infer- 
ence, though compatible with the 
theory of Lucan authorship in the 
second century as they are in the 
twentieth, are not of themselves 
enough to compel or even directly 
to suggest it. Dr. Cadbury tabulates 
the data as follows (Making of Luke- 
Acts, p. 355) : 

(1) Both volumes are addressed to 
Theophilus and have the same author. 

(2) The ' we ' passages are under- 
stood to imply that the author was 
an eye-witness of what is related in 
these parts of Acts, and these include 
the two years at Rome with which 
the volume closes. 

(3) Since 'we' is not used in the 
Gospel, identification of the author 
with an apostle was, in spite of all 
tendency in that direction, excluded. 

(4) According to 2 Tim. iv. II 

(believed by the ancients to be a 
genuine letter from Paul in prison) 
Luke was at one time the only Chris- 
tian companion with Paul. 

The necessary foundation for a 
critical -conclusion identifying the 
auctor ad TheopMlum with Luke is 
here lacking, for the ' we ' passages 
do not warrant the conclusion that 
the auctor ad Theophilum was with 
Paul to the end. The last ' we ' 
occurs in Acts xxviii. 16 (the arrival 
in Rome), and Paul's end is not 
narrated. Apart from an existing 
tradition of Lucan authorship, these 
data would not have established the 
conclusion which was actually reached. 

1 Windisch (Beginnings of Chris- 
tianity, vol. ii. p. 329) finds the sudden 
appearance and disappearance of the 
' we ' "a rather astonishing char- 
acteristic." But if one who had 
been a companion of Paul during a 
part of his career, without himself 
taking a prominent part in the events, 
were at a later date to undertake the 
task of writing a history, it seems 
very natural, as Windisch himself 
appears to allow on p. 314, that he 
should thus unobtrusively indicate 
his presence. Windisch thinks it 
" much easier to explain the facts as 
we have them, if we assume that the 
author of Acts on this occasion took 



at Philippi (Acts xvi. 7). It is resumed again abruptly at xx. 5 
when Paul again passes through Philippi on his last journey to 
Jerusalem. From this point it continues until the Apostle reaches 
Jerusalem (xxi. 17). It is not found in the subsequent narratives 
of Paul's arrest, trials, and imprisonment, but it reappears once 
more with the account of the voyage to Eome, and is used for the 
last time in xxviii. 16 of the arrival of the Apostle and his escort 
in Rome. 

The prima facie interpretation of this evidence, viz. that the 
man who speaks in the first person in these sections is also the 
author of the book, is confirmed by linguistic evidence. The 
searching examinations of the ' we ' sections by Hawkins 1 and 
Harnack 2 shew them to be marked throughout by the style and 
vocabulary characteristic of the author of the third Gospel and the 
Acts. If the author was here using the diary of some other person, 
we must suppose him to have re- written it throughout in his own 
style. This hypothesis makes it difficult to account for the retention 
of the first person plural. 

The reasons which lead many scholars to question the Lucan 
authorship of Luke-Acts arise almost exclusively from the historical 
difficulties of the narrative of Acts. For a full discussion of these 
difficulties reference may be made to Windisch's learned chapter, 
' The Case against the Tradition,' in vol. ii. of The Beginnings 
of Christianity. It must suffice here to indicate the chief 

The main issue centres upon the account of the apostolic Council 
in Acts xv. This narrative does not agree in important points 
with what we ought probably to regard as an account of the same 

over Luke's diary and copied a 
passage out of it ; and perhaps for 
literary reasons, or possibly through 
mere carelessness, failed to mention 
the name of the travelling companion, 
who appeared here for the first time." 
Yet it is clear that the author of 
Luke-Acts was a skilful and, in his 
own way, a careful writer. Windisch 
ascribes to him a clumsiness which 

seems out of keeping with his char- 
acter as a writer. There are diffi- 
culties involved in the acceptance of 
the Lucan authorship, but the ' we ' 
sections themselves are most easily 
accounted for by the hypothesis that 
the tradition is true. 

1 Home Synopiicae, 2nd ed. pp. 

2 Luke the Physician, E.T., pp. 26f. 



meeting in Gal. ii., 1 and in particular it makes Paul agree to a 
settlement of the question between Jewish, and Gentile Christians, 
which is hard to reconcile with his principles, and harder still to 
reconcile with his silence in regard to any such settlement in the 
Epistle to the Galatians and the first Epistle to the Corinthians. 
Two distinct questions are raised : (i) How far is the narrative of 
Acts xv. to be regarded as historical ? (2) If in important points 
it is not historical, are the errors such that they are incompatible 
with the hypothesis of Lucan authorship ? 

We deal with the former question first. There can be little 
doubt that the narrative in Acts xv. is a free composition. We 
have no reason to suspect that the author was present. The 
speeches will have been composed by the author, after the manner 
of ancient historians, to suit the occasion, and they cannot be 
trusted to reproduce what was actually said. James, the leader 
of the Jerusalem Church, is made to support his argument by a 
passage of prophecy which derives its point from a mistranslation 
of the LXX (v. 17). The narrative of the outcome of the confer- 
ence, as recorded in Acts, must likewise be regarded as subject to 
grave doubt. The difficulties involved in the supposition that 
Paul formally accepted the decree on that occasion as a settlement 
of the controversy are hard to surmount, unless with Harnack 
we accept the reading of the Western Text which converts the 
decree from a food-law into an assertion of the moral code. But 
Harnack's view is open to objection both on grounds of textual and 
historical probability, and it has not in general commended itself. 2 

1 The theory that Galatians was 
written before the Council of Acts 
xv. and that the conference of 
Galatians ii. took place on the occa- 
sion of the visit recorded in Acts xi. 
has won support from many scholars : 
Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 
PP- 55 f- 5 Turner, art. ' Chron- 
ology,' Hastings' D.B. ; Kirsopp 
Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 
pp. 279 f. ; C. W. Emmet in Begin- 
nings of Christianity, ii. pp. 271 f. On 
this theory the immediate historical 

objections to the narrative of Acts 
are greatly diminished. But they 
do not disappear, and other diffi- 
culties remain which it is impossible 
to discuss here. Cf. Windisch, op. 
cit. p. 322. See also Burkitt, 
Christian Beginnings, pp. 112, 
n6f., 125 f. Burkitt argues for 
an early date for Galatians and 
an equally early date for Romans 

2 Cf . Windisch, op. cit. p. 324 ; and 
for literature, p. 325, n. i. 


It is less clear that admission of the historical improbabilities 
involved in Acts xv. necessitates the denial of the Lucan author- 
ship of Luke-Acts. In any comparison of Acts with the Pauline 
Epistles it is essential to start by recognising the different aims 
and different circumstances of the two writers. St. Paul's Epistles 
were written in the heat of the conflict by one of the protagonists. 
They bear witness at once to St. Paul's fervent loyalty to principle, 
when he felt principle to be at stake, and also to his anxiety to make 
his position sure, and, wherever possible, to conciliate. " To the 
Jews," he writes (i Cor. ix. 20), " I became as a Jew, that I might 
win Jews ... to the weak I became weak that I might win the 
weak ; I have been all things to all men that by all means I may 
save some. And all things I do, because of the Gospel. . . ." It 
is not surprising that his conduct should appear inconsistent, and 
that he should have been misunderstood. Acts, written at least 
a generation later, is concerned to trace the main stages in the 
expansion and consolidation of the Church. The controversies 
are past and almost forgotten ; the writer is more interested in 
the fact that a settlement was reached than in the principles which 
had been at stake. His work reflects the point of view of the next 
generation. Luke was not present at the conference at Jerusalem. 
His association with the Apostle implied in Acts xvi. was of short 
duration. - It is only from the time of the last journey to 
Jerusalem, some six years later, that we have reason to suppose 
a continuous and prolonged companionship with St. Paul. We 
need not assume that he ever attained to an inner comprehen- 
sion of the Apostle's teaching. He may not have conceived the 
idea of his history until some considerable time after the deaths 
of Peter, Paul, and James in the seventh decade of the century, 
and by then the common mind of the Church was tending to 
lose sight of earlier differences in a growing veneration for its 
apostolic founders. We may fairly conjecture that this was the 
atmosphere in which Acts xv. was written. The decree was not a 
fiction, for we seem to have an echo of its terms in the Book of 
Revelation (ii. 24). Perhaps Paul had accepted it at some time 
and place as a modus vivendi, and perhaps this had lived in tradition. 



The meeting at Jerusalem was not a fiction, for we know from 
Galatians that a settlement of some kind was reached. It does 
not seem, certain that one who had been a companion of St. Paul, 
with some such data as these at his disposal, could not have com- 
posed the narrative of Acts xv. It is one of several historical 
scenes sketched by the writer in free hand on the basis of traditional 
material to mark turning-points in the development of the history. 
It may be grouped with the preaching at Nazareth, the commission 
of the risen Lord, the Ascension, Pentecost, Paul's interview with 
the Jewish leaders in Rome, as a free creation of the author's 
historical imagination. 

Discrepancies between St. Paul's teaching as it is represented 
in Acts, and as it is attested by the Epistles, are alleged against 
authorship by a companion of St. Paul. It is certainly true that 
no one would receive from Acts alone an impression of the char- 
acteristic notes of Pauline teaching. 1 The author of Acts conven- 
tionalises Paul's message and is too anxious to shew that Paul's 
teaching is identical with the teaching of the Old Testament 
properly understood (Acts xxvi. 22). The auctor ad Theophilum 
had not grasped the inwardness of the Pauline Gospel. But that 
does not necessarily prove that he was not a companion of St. Paul ; 
and the discrepancies have been sometimes exaggerated. 2 

If, with Harnack, E. Meyer, Streeter, we accept the traditional 
ascription of authorship as correct, the author was a physician. It 

1 The doctrine of Justification 
appears only in Acts xiii. 38, and this 
verse conveys no impression of the 
importance of the question of the 
Law in the whole structure of St. 
Paul's thought. 

2 E.g. Windisch (op. cit. p. 334) con- 
trasts the picture of Paul in Acts 
claiming to be one with the Pharisees 
in his doctrine of the Resurrection 
with the teaching of I Cor. xv., where, 
Windisch says, " the whole belief in 
the resurrection was based on the 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which 
the Jews denied." The contrast is 

overstated. The Pharisaic doctrine 
which Paul inherited still stands 
behind I Cor. xv. In that chapter 
Paul is arguing with Greek unbelievers 
who questioned the belief in a 
resurrection of the dead, and he 
appeals to the resurrection of Jesus, 
belief in which was in some sort 
common to him and to them. It 
would not be inconsistent with this 
for Paul to feel himself at one with 
the Pharisees in holding belief in a 
general resurrection, even though the 
Pharisees did not accept Christ as 
' the firstfruits.' 


is natural to examine the books to see whether they afford evidence 
of the author's calling. 

A very full comparison of the Lucan vocabulary with the 
terms and vocabulary of the Greek medical writers led Hobart 
(Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882) to the conclusion that " a 
prevailing tinge of medical diction permeates the entire works, 
and shews the hand of a medical author continuously from the 
first verse of the Gospel to the last of the Acts of the Apostles." 
It has been generally agreed that many of Hobart's parallels 
are not relevant, but Harnack, after sifting Hobart's evidence, 
held it to be proved that the Gospel and Acts come from the pen 
of a physician. Similar conclusions were reached by Zahn and 
Moffatt. More recently the evidence has been examined with 
great thoroughness by Dr. Cadbury (Harvard Theological Studies, 
vi. pt. i. ' Diction of Luke and Acts '). He shews that almost all the 
words that have been alleged as distinctively medical are found 
not only in medical writers, but also in the LXX, Lucian, Josephus, 
or Plutarch, or in some combination of these writers. If the language 
of Luke proves that he was a physician, the language of Lucian 
proves with equal cogency that Lucian was a physician. Moreover, 
a proof of authorship by a physician would in any case be difficult 
to obtain, for Greek medical writers, unlike their successors of 
to-day, drew upon the living language for their terms, and no very 
clear line can be drawn between technical and non-technical language. 
As against Hobart, Zahn, Harnack, who claimed that the Lucan 
vocabulary proves the author to have been a physician, Cadbury 
has said the necessary and decisive word. But he has not de- 
molished the relevance of some of the evidence which has been 
collected, and in a few cases he has unduly depreciated the force 
of the medical parallels. The case must be stated in a more 
tentative fashion than it was by Hobart and Harnack : a good 
and early tradition assigns these works to a man who is spoken 
of as ' the beloved physician ' ; the tradition has been disputed, 
but not disproved ; the question is whether the language of the 
book confirms an existing tradition. 1 

1 Cf. Moffatt, Expositor, July 24, 1922. 


The following passages deserve notice : 

In Acts xxviii. (a ' we ' section) the author implies that he was 
a successful healer, since he was honoured by the inhabitants of 
Melita along with St. Paul for the successful cures that were wrought. 
This need not imply more than that the writer was a ' faith -healer.' 
but since there is in any case a high probability that the ' we ' 
sections go back to Luke the physician, it may be conjectured that 
the diarist helped with professional aid. It is noteworthy, therefore, 
that he describes with some particularity the disease from which 
Publius, the principal patient, suffered : ' dysentery and fever.' 
No doubt that might have been recorded by one who was not a 
physician, but it is not the less a confirmation of the tradition. 

Some of the Lucan modifications of the Marcan source when 
disease is in question may reflect the interest and phraseology of a 
professional physician : 

Luke, iv. 38, for Trvpecrcrovo-a (Mk.) writes a-vve^ofjuevr) Trvperw 
(jie^akw. We learn from Galen (vide note ad loc.) that it was 
customary (<rvvrj0e<i) with physicians to distinguish fevers by the 
terms //,ey9 and <r/u/Cj009. The adjective /jL<ya$ with Trvperos 
appears not to be quoted from any but medical writers. It is used 
elsewhere by Galen himself, and by Aretaeus, a medical writer of 
the first century. 1 

Luke, v. 12, for XeTT^d? (Mk.) writes avrjp 77X^775 XeVpa?. 
7rX7J/}779 is often used of disease by Hippocrates, and the modifica- 
tion of Mark's word would perhaps be natural to a physician. 2 

Luke, viii. 44> ^ or %'npa>vQ'n rj 71-77777 rov ai/xaro? avrrj? (Mk.) 
writes eo-rr} 77 pvcris rov a'tfiaro^ avTijs. crr^vai is the usual 
word in medical writers to denote the stoppage of a discharge. At 
this same place Luke omits the Maxcan statement that the woman 
had spent all her substance on physicians, and had grown worse 
rather than better. A layman might have thus tempered the 
story : a physician could hardly fail to do so. 

1 See Hobart, p. 4. Dr. Cadbury jective //eyas in other connexions, 
does not materially weaken the force 2 This case is less striking than 

of this medical parallel by noting the preceding. Cadbury quotes Soph, 

that Luke frequently uses the ad- Antig. 1052 r>ys voarou 7rA>/pr/s ec/ws. 


These passages do not compel the conclusion that the author 
was a physician ; but the tradition being what it is, they are not 
without weight. 

According to Eusebius (H.E. iii. 4) Luke was a physician of 
Antioch. Eusebius does not give the authority for his statement, 
but it may have been Julius Africanus 1 (flor. first half of the third 
century). The same statement is found in the ' Monarchian ' 
prologue to the Gospel. There is nothing improbable in the tradi- 
tion, and, if Luke was the author of Acts, it would explain his 
evident familiarity with and interest in the Antiochene Church. 
We may further note that at Acts xi. 28 (the prophecy of Agabus 
at Antioch) the Western Text introduces a ' we ' clause. It is 
very unlikely that the reading is original, but it may reflect early 

The later traditions concerning the evangelist have little claim 
to be regarded as history. There was a natural tendency to look 
for further traces of the supposed author of St. Paul's Gospel in 
St. Paul's Epistles. The identification of Luke with the unnamed 
' brother ' of 2 Cor. viii. 18, " whose praise in the Gospel is in all 
the churches," first appears in Origen's Homilies on St. Luke. 
The tradition found in the " Monarchian " prologue, in Jerome, 
and in Gregory Nazianzen, that Luke wrote the Gospel in Achaia 
is probably a further inference from this identification. 

The supposed remains of the Evangelist were translated by 
Constantius II. probably from Thebes in Boeotia to the Church of 
the Holy Apostles at Constantinople together with the remains 
of St. Andrew in the year A.D. 357.2 

The tradition that Luke was a painter is found in Nicephorus 
Callistus (fourteenth century), 3 who relates on the authority of 
Theodoras Lector (prob. sixth century) that the Empress Eudocia 
sent to Pulcheria from Jerusalem the icon of the Mother of God 
painted by the Apostle Luke. 

1 Cf. Cadbury in Beginnings, ii. See also Lagrange, p. xix, on the 
p. 247. Cadbury (op. cit.) gives a account in the 'Passion of St. A rtemius 
convenient collection of ancient testi- which appears to be taken from 
monia concerning Luke. Philostorgius. 

2 Jerome, De viris illustribus, vii. 3 Migne, P.O. Ixxxvi. 165. 



We have no evidence to fix the date of the Gospel with any 
exactness. It was certainly written after the fall of Jerusalem in 
A.D. 70, for in c. xxi. the evangelist makes Jesus allude to the 
circumstances of the siege and to the subsequent dispersion of the 
Jews. Other allusions more or less explicit to the fall of Jerusalem 
which are peculiar to this Gospel (xix. 27, 41-44, xxiii. 27 f.) confirm 
this conclusion. Blass and Harnack have revived an argument 
of scholars of the Renaissance for a date in the early sixties. The 
conclusion of Acts before the martyrdom of Paul can only be ex- 
plained, it is said, if that event had not yet taken place. Acts was 
therefore written before the conclusion of the Apostle's imprison- 
ment, and the Gospel still earlier. The language used in the Gospel 
about the siege of Jerusalem, it is urged, is not decisive against 
this dating. There is no difficulty in supposing that the siege was 
actually foretold. Other such cases of prophecy are well authenti- 
cated. Blass cites Savonarola's prophecy of the sack of Rome by 
the French under Charles VIII. In itself c. xxi. might be com- 
patible with this early date, but when the Lucan text of c. xxi. is 
compared with Mark xiii., which it may be taken as certain that 
the evangelist had before him, it becomes impossible to give a 
convincing interpretation of the Lucan text except on the assumption 
that the siege was past history, and that the evangelist has modified 
his source in the light of an event, well known to all his readers, which 
required to be placed in the scheme of the history of salvation. The 
Gospel, then, was certainly written after A.D. 70, and probably not 
immediately after. The author and his readers seem to look back 
reflectively upon the fall of Jerusalem from a certain distance. 
The ' times of the Gentiles ' have set in. 

No certain terminus ad quern can be fixed. Acts was possibly 
known to Clement of Rome (A.D. 96),* and the Gospel was almost 
certainly known to the fourth Evangelist. 2 The friendly attitude 
towards the Roman administration is in favour of a date prior to 

1 See Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 532. 
2 See Additional Note, ' St. Luke and St. John.' 


the persecutions under Domitian. Moreover, it is in favour of 
a date earlier rather than later in the last decades of the first 
century that Acts appears to be written in entire independence of 
the Pauline Epistles. 1 Not only is St. Paul's .activity as a letter- 
writer not referred to, but the accounts of his relations with the 
Church at Jerusalem and with the Church at Corinth shew no 
dependence on the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Corinthians. 

Certainty is not attainable : a date about 80-85 would harmonise 
with the considerations which we have noted, and would allow 
without difficulty for authorship by a former companion of St. Paul. 
But the possibility of a date somewhat later in the century cannot 
be ruled out. 

It has been held that Luke-Acts can be shewn to be dependent 
on the Antiquities of Josephus. 2 If this were established, it would fix 
the date as not earlier than 93 or 94, when the Antiquities was pub- 
lished. The principal arguments for dependence are based on the 
references to Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene in Lk. iii. I, and to the 
risings under Theudas and Judas of Galilee in the speech of Gamaliel 
(Acts v. 35 f.). In both these cases, it is argued, Luke has made a 
historical blunder, and in both cases an explanation is forthcoming 
on the supposition that Luke has read somewhat hastily, and 
misread, the Antiquities. In the case of Lysanias it is probable 
that there is no mistake to explain. 3 In the case of Gamaliel's 
speech there can be little doubt that Luke has made a mistake in 
placing the rising of Theudas before the rising under Judas the 
Galilean at the time of the enrolment. The suggestion is that the 
mistake arose from a misreading of Josephus, Ant. xx. 5, where 
Josephus, after recording the destruction of Theudas, proceeds to 
relate that the procurator Alexander put to death some sons of that 
Judas of Galilee who had incited the Jews to revolt at the time of 

1 Wendland, however, thinks that 2 Holtzmann, Z.W.T., 1873, pp. 

Acts xv. deliberately corrects the im- 85-93 ; Krenkel, Josephus u. Lukas 

pression of Peter's position conveyed (1894) > Schmiedel, art. ' Lysanias and 

in Gal. ii., and that the author of Theudas ' in E. Bibl. ; Burkitt, Gospel 

Acts knew a collection of Pauline History amlitsTransmission, pp. 105 f. 

Epistles, Plett.-rdm. Kullur, pp. 319 3 See Additional Note, ' Lysanias 

n. 2, 333. of Abilene.' 


Quirinius. The verbal parallels between Acts v. and Ant. xx. 5 
are not very striking, and it seems much more likely that a skilful 
writer like Luke should have confused his recollections or his notes 
than that he should have misread a plain text. Furthermore, as 
Schiirer has shewn, 1 Luke elsewhere frequently shews independence 
of Josephus, where, had he known him, he might have been expected 
to follow him. We conclude, therefore, that the alleged dependence 
of Luke upon Josephus is not proven. 

1 Schiirer, Z.W.T., 1876, pp. 574- stated and reviewed by Hunkin in 
582. The evidence is conveniently Church Quarterly Review, April 1919. 




As we have already seen, Irenaeus (writing about A.D. 185) is the 
earliest writer who refers to the Gospel as the work of Luke. But 
we have ample evidence of the use of the Gospel more than a genera- 
tion earlier both by recognised Church writers and by leaders of 
Christian Gnosticism. 

The Didache in its extant form shews dependence upon both 
the Matthaean and the Lucan forms of the Great Sermon. The 
following clauses are equivalent to Luke and have no exact parallel 
in Matthew : 

Did. i. Lk. vi. 

3. euAoyeire rov<s Karapco/zei/oi'S 28. ei5AoyetT TOIJS 

Trota yap 

i \ 5 

ecu' a 

5. iravrl TOJ aiTovvrt ere SiSov 



32. KCU et ayaTrare TODS aya-rrwv- 
S v/xas, TTOta V/J.LV X"/ Jts ecrrtVy 
30. iravrl alrovvri o-e 6Y8oi>, /cat 
UTTO TOV atpovTos TO, (ro. /j.r) aTrcuVei. 

But Did. i. 3-ii. 1 is not found in the Latin version, in Barnabas, 
or in the Apostolic Church Order,- and is very probably an early 

Did. xvi. i affords another parallel to a passage peculiar to Luke 
of the canonical evangelists : 
Mt. xxv, 13 

ypriyopelre o$t> (the par- 
able of the virgins and 
their lamps has preceded), 
OTL OVK ot'fSare T^V &//>/" 
ovSl TT]V wpav. 

Did. xvi. i 

virep TTJS 

Lk. xii. 



v(j.Cov at 

/cat at 6<r- 

d\\a yiveaOe ^rot/xot ' ov 
yap o'iSare rrjv ibpav ei> y 
6 Kijpios 


40. Kal y/xeZs 

t, ort TJ wpq. ou oo- 
6 w'oj TOU avdptiirov 
?:. 4O = Mt. xxiv. 



But again the evidence is not decisive. Lk. xii. 35 may come from 
Q, and it is possible that the Didache echoes Q, not Luke (so Streeter, 
Four Gospels, p. 5H). 1 

There is no clear evidence that Ignatius knew St. Luke. In 
Smyrn. i. 2 it is said that Jesus was crucified ' under Pontius 
Pilate and Herod.' The two names are coupled together in con- 
nexion with the death of Jesus in the Lucan writings alone in the 
N.T., but the association in tradition is probably older than Luke, 
and may have come independently to Ignatius. The words of the 
Risen Christ in Smyrn. iii. are similar to those in the narrative 
Lk. xxiv. 36 i., but they do not appear to be dependent on Luke. 

There is no trace of the influence of Luke in the Epistle of 
Barnabas, which appears to use Matthew only of the Gospels. 
There is no clear case of dependence on Luke in the Epistle of 
Clement of Rome. 2 The Shepherd of Hermas, as we should expect 
from the nature of the book, contains no direct quotations either 
from the Old Testament or from Apostolic writings. But there 
are undoubted echoes from the synoptic Gospels. In general 
the resemblance seems closest to Matthew and Mark, yet he may 
have used Luke too. 3 We have no positive evidence that Papias 
knew Luke. 

The Apocryphal Gospel according to Peter is dated by Lake be- 
tween 100 and 135, by Turner 4 between 115 and 140. It appears 
to shew acquaintance with each of the four canonical Gospels. 5 
The trial before Herod (cc. i., ii.) and the repentance of the crucified 
robber (c. iv.) are probably derived from Luke. This hypothesis 
is strengthened by a number of verbal similarities between Luke 
and ' Peter ' : 

Peter iv. 10. KaKovpyoi of the crucified malefactors. 

= Lk. xxiii. 32, 33, 39. (Mt. and Mk. A^CTTOU.) 

1 The Didache is included here for z Plummer, pp. Ixxiv f. 
convenience. It is not intended to 3 Cf. esp. Sim. v. ii. 4 with Lk. 
express an opinion as to its date. xiii. 8, 9, and for other possible re- 
There is much to be said for the miniscences see Stanton, Gosp. as 
date 80-100. Cf. Turner, Studies Hist. Doc. i. p. 74. 
in Early Church History, p. 31; 4 Study of New Testament, p. 12. 
Streeter, The Primitive Church, pp. 5 See art. by C. H. Turner in 
279 f. J.Th.S., Jan. 1913. 


Peter ii. <rdf3/3a.Tov e7ri<j!>wo-Kei. \ , , ... 

j , / - oo / f L/I - LlK - XX1I1. 54. 

ix. 6TTi(p(i)crKovTo<s TOD crappaTov.j 
viii. K07TTTcu TO. (m/07/. Cf. Lk. xxiii. 48. 
viii. i'Sere OTTOO-OI/ SIKCUOS e<TTii>. Cf. Lk. xxiii. 47. 

ix. Kai eiSoi/ (ot a-T/oaTtamxi) ayotxtfei/ras rows ovpavovs /cat Si'o 
avSpas KareXOovTas e/<ei#ej/. Cf. Lk. xxiv. 4. 

About the middle of the second century the third canonical 
Gospel was, with St. Matthew's Gospel, one of the principal author- 
ities used by Justin Martyr for the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. 1 
He makes direct reference to a number of passages peculiar to St. 
Luke: Elizabeth, the Baptist's mother; the annunciation to Mary; 
the census under Quirinius; the inn at Bethlehem; Jesus thirty 
years old at the beginning of his ministry; Jesus sent by Pilate 
to be tried before Herod; the word from the cross, "Father, into 
thy hands . . ." 2 

Justin's frequent and confident use of the Gospel in the middle 
of the century may be taken to prove that in the course of the 
earlier decades of the second century the Gospel had won a secure 
place as an authority for the teaching and work of Jesus Christ. 
This conclusion is confirmed by the probable use of the Gospel by 
the Gnostic heresiarchs Basilides and Valentinus, and its certain 
use by Marcion. 

Basilides of Alexandria (who flourished shortly before the 
middle of the second century) composed twenty-four books EtV 
TO Eva r yye\Loi>. s Like all the original writings of the chief Gnostics 
this work has perished and its exact character is uncertain, but 
from a very obscure reference in the Disputatio Archelai et Manelis 4 

1 The first Apology of Justin cannot pp. 599, 600) refers as the ' E 

be exactly dated, but it is probably of Basilides, quoting from book xxiii. 
not earlier than 150. The Dialogue 4 Routh, JRel. Sacr. v. p. 197 : 

is later than the Apology to which it " [Manes only repeats the theories of 

refers (c. 120), but was apparently Basilides.] Extat enim tertius de- 

written, like the Apology, in the reign cimus liber tractatuum eius (i.e. of 

of Antoninus Pius and therefore Basilides) cuius initium tale est : 

prior to A.D. 161. Tertium decimum nobis tractatuum 

2 i Apol. 34 ; Dial. 78, 88, 100, scribentibus librum, necessarium ser- 
IO 3> IO 5> IQ 6. monem uberemque salutaris sermo 

3 Eus. H.E. iv. 7, on the authority praestavit. Per parvulam (? para- 
of Agrippa Castor. - It is no doubt to bolam) divitis et pauperis f naturamf 
this book that Clement (Strom, iv. 12, sine radice et sine loco rebus super- 


it appears that the thirteenth book began with a treatment of the 
problem of evil in the form of an exposition of the parable of Dives 
and Lazarus (Luke xvi.) Again, Hippolytus in discussing Basilides 
apparently makes either Basilides himself or his son Isidore refer 
to Luke i. 35, " The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee . . . " * 

The evidence for the use of the Lucan Gospel by Valentinus 
is less certain. Hippolytus 2 seems to imply that Valentinus too 
made use of the same text from Luke (i. 35), but the method of 
quotation is ambiguous and it is not certain that Valentinus is to 
be supplied as subject to the verb (frrjcrl. 3 

Ptolemaeus, a disciple of Valentinus, and one of the most im- 
portant Gnostic teachers at the time of Irenaeus, probably used the 
entire Gospel Canon. Irenaeus 4 quotes examples of Ptolemaeus's 
method of interpretation which include passages from Matthew, 
Luke, and John. 

Another Valentinian Gnostic, Heracleon, was probably the first 
writer to produce a commentary on Christian Scriptures. Besides 
his commentary on St. John, of which considerable extracts have 
been preserved in Origen, he wrote also a commentary on Luke, 
fragments of which (on Luke xii. 8-n) are quoted by Clement 
(Strom, iv. 9, p. 595 Potter). 

The heresiarch Marcion appears to have been the first to 
' construct a formal Canon of Christian Scripture. This work was 
achieved between the years 139 and 144, while Marcion was living 
in Rome. His Gospel was an edition of the Gospel according 
to St. Luke, from which all passages which implied the divine 
authority of the Old Testament and the reality of Christ's physical 
body were systematically eliminated. By this procedure Marcion 
believed that he was reconstructing the true and original version 
of the Gospel and purging it of interpolations for which Judaising 
Christians were responsible. Marcion's Gospel omitteci the accounts 
of the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, the Mission of John 

venientem,undepullulaveritindicat." * Refut. vii. 26. 

For a discussion of the passage see 2 Refut. vi. 35. 

Hort, s.v. Basilides, D.C.b. p. 276. 3 On this ambiguity see Stanton, 

The Dispuiatio is assigned to the close Gospels as Hist. Documents, i. pp. 68 f . 

of the third century or a little later, 4 Adv. Haeres. i. cc. viii., xx., xxv. 


the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus, the genealogy, the tempta- 
tion. The Gospel began with iv. 31, to which was prefixed the 
first clause of iii. I, the section iv. 16-30 being abbreviated and 
transferred to follow iv. 31 f. As characteristic examples of the 
many alterations introduced by Marcion in the body of the Gospel, 
we may note that at xiii. 28 for 'Afipaafj, KOI 'I<raa/c KOI 'la/ceo/? 
rot>9 TTpo^rfras he read TOU? SIKCLLOVS, and for e/c/3a\Xo- 
, /cparovfjievovs, and that at xvi. 17 for rov vofjuov he read 

TWV \6yCOV fJLOV. 1 

In the generation succeeding Marcion, and probably in large ~ 
measure under the impulse which he imparted, the Church moved 
towards the recognition of an authoritative Gospel Canon. The 
fourfold Canon, giving the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, and John, must have been well established at Rome when 
Tatian compiled the Diatessaron about 170. The idea of the four- 
fold Canon was so deeply woven into the texture of the mind of 
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum, that the four Gospels are to him 
four pillars whereon the Church rests, corresponding to the four 
quarters of the world, the four chief winds, the four faces of the 
Cherubim. 2 In Antioch and in Asia Minor at the same period the 
fourfold Canon appears to have been as well established as it was 
in the West. 

In one of his letters St. Jerome refers to a commentary on the 
four Gospels which bore the name of Theophilus who was Bishop 
of Antioch c. i8o. 3 Jerome seems to say that Theophilus had first 
made a harmony of the four Gospels (quattuor evangelistarum in 
unum opus dicta compingens). In answer to Algasia's enquiries, 
he quotes Theophilus's interpretation of the parable of the Unjust 
Steward, according to which the rich man represents God, and the 
unjust steward St. Paul ; St. Paul was an unjust steward of the 
Law, who after his conversion said within himself : " I will do what 
I judge to be useful for myself, that when I am cast out of the 

1 The authorities for the text of Marcion, pp. 48 f. and 159* f. 
Marcion's Gospel are Tertullian, Adv. z Adv. Haeres. iii. n. 
Marc. iv. ; Adamantius, Dial. ; Epiph. 3 Epist. 121 (151) ad Algasiam, 

Adv. Haeres. 42. See Harnack, Migne, P.L. xxii. 1020. 



stewardship, the Christians may receive me into their houses." If 
the work which St. Jerome quotes was really the work of Theophilus 
of Antioch, it is by far the earliest New Testament commentary 
(apart from the works of Basilides and Heracleon referred to above) 
of which we have any record. But in his notice of Theophilus in 
the De viris illustribus Jerome himself shews hesitation on grounds 
of style in accepting Theophilus as the author of the commentary. 1 

It may be added that whether or not Theophilus wrote the 
commentary to which Jerome refers, he certainly used the Gospel 
according to St. Luke, 2 and almost certainly recognised the four- 
fold Canon. 3 

For the Churches of Asia Minor we may probably make use 
of the evidence of the recently discovered Epistula Apostolorum 4 
which shews dependence upon the four canonical Gospels. This 
work is supposed by Schmidt to have been composed in Asia Minor 
by an orthodox Christian about the year 160. 

In the later decades of the second century and from this time 
forward the Gospel according to St. Luke took its place as a 
matter of course alongside the other three, as a part of the inspired 
apostolic scriptures in which the Christian revelation was contained 
and expressed. With the formation of the Canon the history of 
primitive Christian literature is brought to its close, and there begins 
the epoch of patristic literature in the stricter sense of the term, 5 
for which the Apologists had prepared the way. In the patristic 
period the authority of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the 

1 See Harnack, Altclir. Lit. i. p. 
498. The extant Latin commentary 
on the four Gospels which passes 
under the name of Theophilus has 
been proved by Harnack to be neither 
the work of Theophilus himself, nor 
yet the work referred to by Jerome. 
It is the work of a late Latin compiler 
who probably wrote in S. Gaul 
towards the end of the fifth century, 
and drew upon the writings of 
Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, pseudo- 
Arnobius Junior, and Augustine. 
Texte u. Unters. i. 4, pp. 97 f. 

2 Ad Autolycum, ii. 13 ; of. Lk. 
xviii. 27. 

3 Ib. ii. 22 ; he quotes Jo. i. i as 
the words of John, one of the 
7rvevfj.aTo<l>6poi, whom he mentions 
in the same breath with a.1 a-yiai 

4 Ed. C. Schmidt, Texte u. Unters., 

5 On the importance of this dis- 
tinction see the classical treatment 
by Overbeck, ' Uber die Anfange der 
patristischen Literatur,' Historische 
Zeitschrift (N.F.), 1882, xii. pp. 417 f. 


New Testament is settled and presupposed. In spite of certain 
doubtful questions, the Canon of Apostolic Scripture is, in principle, 
closed. The history of St. Luke's Gospel becomes a part of the 
history of the New Testament. 

In the mind of the Church the four Gospels were four inspired 
and therefore congruous testimonies to the life and teaching of 
Jesus Christ. It was assumed that apparent discrepancies were in 
some way capable of reconciliation. Yet though all the four Gospels 
enjoyed a co-ordinate authority, a certain primacy tended to attach 
itself to the two Gospels which bear apostolic names : Matthew and 
John. Thus Tertullian, 1 in criticising Marcion for his mutilation of 
Luke's Gospel, avows that Luke's Gospel even in its integrity would 
not suffice by itself, since it did but reproduce the Gospel of Paul, 
and Paul himself was dependent upon the elder apostles for the Gospel 
which he had received. The tradition of apostolic authorship relieved 
the Gospels of St. Matthew and of St. John from such criticism. 
Moreover we may recognise certain intrinsic excellences in these 
two Gospels which fitted them to hold the chief places in the Canon. 
The doctrinal importance and uniqueness of St. John's Gospel is 
obvious. In St. Matthew's Gospel the systematic groupings of the 
Lord's sayings and parables made it eminently useful for purposes 
of teaching and .edification, while the solemn citations from prophecy 
with which the narrative is punctuated served to emphasise the 
relation of the life of Christ to the whole scheme of Scripture. Very 
naturally St. Mark's Gospel dropped into the background. It con- 
tained little that was not represented elsewhere. St. Luke's Gospel 
occupied an intermediate position. Though it never quite attained 
the prestige of the apostolic Gospels of Matthew and John, the 
extent and the importance of the matter peculiar to Luke, especially 
the first two chapters" and the Lucan parables which lent themselves 
so readily to allegorical exegesis, ensured the Gospel a prominent 
place in the mind and imagination of Christendom. 

In the great majority of the MSS., the Gospel according to St. Luke 
stands third in the Canon. The order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John 2 

1 Adv. Marcion. iv. 2. 
2 The order in syr.cur Matthew, Mark, John, Luke is a curious variant. 


corresponds with the order given by Irenaeus and was probably 
thought to be chronological. This order eventually prevailed 
both in East and West, but an earlier tradition in the West followed 
Tertullian in placing the two apostolic Gospels first and the two 
Gospels of apostolici second. The latter grouping (predominantly 
in the form Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) is found in Codex Bezae, 
the Freer Codex (W), most MSS. of the Old Latin, 1 the Gothic 
version, and the Apostolic Constitutions. 


Origen, the Father of Church commentators, wrote commentaries 
on St. Luke's Gospel in five books. 2 Except for some fragments, 
which were probably derived from this work, 3 these commentaries 
have disappeared. But there has come down to us in a Latin 
translation by Jerome 4 a collection of homilies on the Gospel which 
Origen delivered apparently at Caesarea after his withdrawal from 
Alexandria in A.D. 231. Of this collection of homilies 5 thirty-nine 
in all the first twenty deal with the first two chapters of the Gospel, 
and the next thirteen with chapters iii. and iv. The remaining six 
homilies deal sporadically with passages from c. x. to c. xx. From 
In Matt. torn. xiii. 29, xvi. 9 ; In JoJian. torn, xxxii. 2, we learn that 
Origen wrote other homilies upon the Gospel which are now lost. 
The homilies of Origen entered extensively into the later tradition 
of exegesis. Remote and fantastic as the exegesis must often 
appear to a modern reader, they are fresh and interesting examples 
of Origen's expository method, and throw much light on beliefs 
and practice in the Church of the third century. Homily xvii., for 
example (on Lk. ii. 33-36), illustrates Origen's severity toward 
second marriages ; Homily xxiii. (on Lk. iii. 9-12) deals with the 
question how prophecies which foretell an immediate judgement are 
to be interpreted, when " so many ages and unnumbered years have 
passed from that time to the present day." How natural it was to 


1 k has the order John, Luke, 3 Lommatzsch, v. pp. 237-244. 

Mark, Matthew, and Ambrosiaster 4 Jerome made his translation at 
Matthew, Luke, Mark, John. Bethlehem in the year 389. 

2 Jer. Prol. Horn, in Luc. 5 Lommatzsch, v. pp. 85-236. 


Origen to regard the text of Scripture as the sacramental covering 
which enshrined the deeper truths of the divine dispensation is 
well illustrated by Horn. xii. on Lk. ii. 8-10. Are we to suppose, 
Origen asks, that the divine word of Scripture means no more than 
that an angel came to some shepherds and spoke to them ? Not so. 
" Hear ye, shepherds of the Churches, ye shepherds of God : God's 
angel ever descends from heaven and declares to you that this day 
there is born to you a Saviour who is Christ the Lord." But there 
is a yet more holy meaning to which we may penetrate. There are 
certain shepherd angels who order the affairs of men. Truly it was 
great joy to those to whom had been committed the care of men 
and of their provinces that Christ had come into the world. " Much 
benefit did that angel receive who directed the affairs of Egypt, after 
the Lord had come down from heaven, that the Egyptians might 
become Christians. ..." Other interesting homilies are the first 
(on the four Gospels), the third (on the nature of angels), the sixth 
(which deals with the question why Jesus was not born of a virgin 
who was not betrothed), the fourteenth (on the Purification of 
Jesus). 1 

Among the works of Eusebius in Migne (P.O. xxiv. 529) are 
printed fragments of a ' commentary ' on Luke which have been 
extracted from four later catenae. The fragments, some fifty-two 
in number, deal with texts scattered over the Gospel. Some at any 
rate of the fragments are taken from other extant works of Eusebius, 
and it is not certain that any of them come from an actual commen- 
tary on the Gospel. 2 As an exegete Eusebius stands in the Origenist 
tradition, and in his other commentaries freely plagiarises from his 

Fragments of a commentary on St. Luke by Athanasius have 
been extracted from catenae and are printed in Migne, P.O. xxvii. 

Fragments only remain of the work of another fourth-century 
Greek exegete who wrote homilies on St. Luke : Titus, Bishop of 

1 For an excellent summary account of these homilies see B. F. Westcott, 
art. ' Origenes,' Diet, of Chr. Biogr. 

2 See Harnack, Chronologie, ii. p. 123. 


Bostra a see on the outposts of the Empire east of Palestine near 
the edge of the Arabian desert. The homilies on Luke were probably 
written between 364 and 375. 1 The name of Titus of Bostra appears 
at the head of a later catena. This is certainly a mistake, 2 but there 
is no reason to question the authenticity of the numerous scholia 
which bear the name of Titus. Titus was much occupied in refuting 
the Manichees. Finding that the allegorical method of interpretation 
had enabled Mani to read his own erroneous speculations into the 
text of Scripture, Titus himself adheres to the literal meaning. 3 
Though he appears to draw on Origen to some extent, 4 he is in 
principle an adherent of the Antiochene school. 

Both of the great Antiochene exegetes, Diodore of Tarsus and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, are said to have commented on the entire 
Scripture. 5 Some fragments survive of Theodore's commentary on 
Luke. 6 

The last great independent commentary on St. Luke from the 
Greek-speaking Church was that of Cyril of Alexandria. In the 
complete edition of Cyril's voluminous and profoundly influential 
writings, 7 the greater part is taken up by his commentaries on Scrip- 
ture. Fragments only survive of the original Greek of the commen- 
tary on St. Luke, but a considerable part of the commentary is 
preserved in a Syriac version in MS. at the British Museum. 8 Cyril's 
commentaries on the New Testament must have been written after 
428, since in the earliest, that on St. John's Gospel, he refers to the 
Nestorian heresy. 9 The dogmatic interest is very prominent in 
Cyril's commentary. We seldom find a paragraph in which there 
is not some carefully chosen phrase which implicitly repudiates 
Nestorian heresy. Not infrequently the reader feels that the exegete 
is explaining away the reality of Christ's human experience. In 
his exposition of Christ's words Cyril is very sober. The elaborate 

1 Siekenberger, Texte u. Unters. 8 Ed. R. Payne Smith, Oxford, 
xxi. i, pp. 108 f. 1858. Translated by the same, 2 vols., 

2 See below, pp. xxxvii f. Oxford, 1859. Fragments of a Syriac 

3 Tit. Bost. Contra Munich, iv. 96. version of homilies by Cyril on St. 

4 Siekenberger, op. cit. p. 114. Luke are also preserved in a Nitrian 

5 Leontius, De sectis, iv. 3. MS., ed. by W. Wright, London, 1874. 
Migne, P.O. Ixvi. 715-728. 9 Bardenhewer, Patrology (E.T.), 
7 Migne, P.G. Ixviii.-lxxvii. p. 364. 


allegorism of the earlier Alexandrine school was not to his taste. 
Thus in Homily cviii. on the parable of the Unjust Steward he writes : 
" The parables then indirectly and figuratively explain to us much 
that is for our edification, provided only we consider their meaning 
in a brief and summary manner. For we are not to search into all 
the parts of the parable in a subtle and prying way, lest the argument 
by its immoderate length weary with superfluous matter even those 
most fond of hearing. . . . All the parts of the parable, therefore, are 
not necessarily and in every respect useful for the explanation of 
the things signified." Similarly in the preceding homily on the 
Prodigal Son, he states, discusses, and rejects the interpretation 
which would interpret the upright son of the holy angels and the 
prodigal of the fallen human race, likewise the interpretation of the 
elder son as the Jewish people, and the interpretation of the fatted 
calf as representative of the person of the Saviour ; and he is only 
willing to find one clue to the parable that which is laid down by 
the evangelist himself, when he says of Christ a little before the 
parable : " And all the publicans and sinners drew near unto him 
to hear him. And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, 
This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them." 

The exegetical literature from the Latin-speaking Church in the 
early centuries is comparatively meagre. One large Latin commen- 
tary on St. Luke has come down to us that by St. Ambrose. The 
Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam libris decem comprehensa is the 
longest single work of Ambrose. The commentary itself was pub- 
lished not earlier than 388, * but it is based upon homilies which had 
been already delivered in public. After his elevation to the episco- 
pate Ambrose devoted himself to the study of theology under the 
direction of Simplicianus, who afterwards succeeded him. He made 
an especial study of the Greek Fathers, Clement, Origen, Basil, 
Didymus the Blind. He also read Philo. Like Origen he recognised 
a triple meaning in Scripture, the natural, the mystical, and the 
moral. " In the commentary on St. Luke," says Bardenhewer, 
the biblical text is made to serve purposes of instruction and 
edification, but with a thorough ignoring of all the rules of her- 

1 Bardenhewer, op. cit. p. 435. 


meneutics, and frequently in so forced and artificial a manner as 
to make it hard to follow with, any ease the mental process of the 
interpreter." " In verbis ludit, in sententiis dormitat," Jerome 
wrote of this work. 1 

Very different in character from the commentary of Ambrose 
are the 52 Quaestiones on separate texts in St. Luke which make 
up the second of the two books Quaestionum evangeliorum of 
St. Augustine. The allegorical exegesis is frequently fantastic 
enough, as for instance the interpretation of the parable of the 
Good Samaritan, where the traveller represents the human race, 
Jerusalem the blessed city of peace which fallen man has left, while 
Jericho, meaning the moon which by its changing phases symbolises 
mortality, represents the goal for which the fallen race is bound ; 
the Good Samaritan himself is the Saviour, the oil and the wine the 
two precepts of love, the inn where the stranger is left the Church, 
and the interval which is to intervene before the Samaritan's return, 
the interval before the Resurrection. 2 Or again, when the number 
of the seventy-two disciples symbolises the universal illumination 
of the Gospel of the Trinity, since the sun takes twenty-four hours 
to run its course and 24 x 3 =72. To us all this seems fanciful, but 
the reader is never in doubt as to what the exegete means, and 
though the form is fantastic, the interpretation is vigorous and 
reveals a master's hand and mind. 

The four books of Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum, were 
written about this same period (A.D. 400). Their aim is to reconcile 
apparent discrepancies between the evangelists. Augustine makes 
St. Matthew his foundation. Mark he holds to be an abbreviation 
of St. Matthew. For some reason, which the devout enquirer may 
be able to discover, the Holy Spirit permitted the sacred writers 
to record the same events in different order. Yet Augustine is 
anxious to make it clear that there is no real discrepancy between 
one Gospel and another. 

Two other Latin books may be mentioned : Adnotationes 

1 Prol, in Horn. Orig. in Luc. Ambrose (Migne, P.L. xv. 1527). 

2 Similar interpretations of the Cyril of Alexandria, on the other hand, 
Parable of the Good Samaritan are confines himself, as usual, to the plain 
given by Orig. Horn, xxxiv. and by meaning of the text. 


ad quaedam evangeliorum loca (Migne, P.L. liii. pp. 569 f .), a collection 
of scholia on passages in Matthew, Luke, and John attributed to 
Arnobius junior, but erroneously. 1 They have been incorporated 
into the Pseudo-Theophilus. 2 

Eucherius of Lerins, Bishop of Lyon c. 424, died c. 450, 3 wrote 
two books of Instructions to his son Salonius (Migne, P.L. 1. pp. 
773 f.). The former contains two chapters on the Old and New 
Testaments respectively with questions and answers on difficulties 
in Books of the Bible. There are nine such questions on St. Luke. 
Both the questions and answers are poor. 


After the fifth Christian century the impulse to write fresh 
commentaries on the books of Scripture was exhausted. For 
more than a thousand years the task of a Biblical commentator 
was reduced to that of compiling and ordering extracts from the 
exegetical literature of the Patristic Age. 4 The transition to the 
age of the compilers is formally recognised by the igth Canon of 
the Trullan Synod (Quinisexta) summoned by Justinian II. in 
A.D. 6g2. 5 This Canon expressly instructs the clergy to confine 
their expositions of Scripture to the teaching of the Fathers, and 
to refrain from expositions of their own. 

The catena bearing the name of Titus of Bostra, to which 
reference has already been made, is based upon the commentary of 
Cyril of Alexandria. Besides Titus of Bostra, the author draws 
upon Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Chrysostom, Dionysius the 
Areopagite, Isidore of Pelusium. It probably dates from the sixth 

The catena on Luke published by Cramer is an expansion of 
pseudo-Titus. It comes from the same hand as catenae on Matthew 

1 Bardenhewer, op. cit. p. 604. byzantinischen Literatur, Miinchen, 
Dom Morin holds that this Arnobius 1897, pp. 206-218, and Lietzmann. 
was an Illyrian who lived in Rome. ' Catenen,' Milteilungen tiber ihre 

2 Cf. above, p. xxx, n. i. Geschichte u. handschriftliche Uberlie- 

3 Bardenhewer, op. cil. p. 518. ferung, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897. 
On Catenae see Alb. Ehrhard in 5 Hefele, iii. pp. 328 f. ; Mansi, xi. 

Kari Krumbacher's Geschichte der p. 952. 


and John. The latest author quoted is the priest and monk 
Thalassios, c. 650. 1 The catena probably dates from c. 700. Some 
fifty fragments of Titus of Bostra are included. The author went 
back to original sources. 

The catena of Nicetas 2 on St. Luke dates from about 1080, when 
its author was Deacon and Didaskalos of Hagia Sophia. 3 The 
catena, which contains about 3300 scholia, is based mainly on the 
homilies of Cyril of Alexandria on Luke, and those of Chrysostom 
on Matthew. He also makes extensive use of Titus of Bostra. 
Nicetas generally goes back to original texts and generally gives 
both the author of his quotation and the book from which it is 

Two other Byzantine commentators were more or less con- 
temporary with Nicetas. Euthymius Zigabenus, 4 a monk of the 
monastery TJ)? irepL^\eirrov in Constantinople and a theologian 
of high repute in the reign of Alexios Komnenos (1081-1118), wrote 
commentaries on the Psalms and the Gospels. His main sources 
are the Cappadocian Fathers and Chrysostom. Occasionally he 
allows himself an interpretation of his own. 

Theophylact, Archbishop of Achrida in Bulgaria some time before 
1078, wrote commentaries on many books of the Old Testament 
and all of the New. In the Commentary on Matthew, to which 
he often refers in writing on the other Gospels, he draws largely 
upon Chrysostom, but also upon others of the Fathers. It is said 
that Theophylact uses mainly the same patristic passages as 
Euthymius, and the exact relation between the two is uncertain. 5 
Since the Commentary of Theophylact on Acts is essentially iden- 
tical with that of ' Oecumenius,' the originality of his other work 
is suspect. 

A catena on Luke by Makarios Chrysokephalos, Metropolitan 
of Philadelphia in the middle of the fourteenth century, is confined to 
sections peculiar to Luke. It appears not to have been completed. 
The bulk of the material comes from Nicetas. There are a few 

1 Quoted Matt. Catena, ed. Cramer, 3 He later became Metropolitan of 
197. 14 f. Heraclea in Thrace. 

2 Sickenberger, T.u.U. xxii. (N.F. 4 See Krumbacher, op. cit. pp. 82 f. 
vii.), Heft 4. ( 6 Krumbacher, op. cit. p. 84. 


fresh extracts from other writers, early and late, and some few 
notes, bearing his own monogram, by himself. 1 

We return now to the Western Church. After the downfall of 
the Western Empire, the first work on the Gospel which calls for 
mention is that of the Venerable Bede (f 735). Bede's commentary, 
as we are told in the prefatory letter to Acca, is chiefly a compila- 
tion from the writings of the four Doctors of the Latin Church, 
but particularly from St. Ambrose. Some things, however, " which 
the Author of light has opened to him," he has added himself. 

The Glossa ordinaria 2 on the whole Bible, the work of Walafrid 
Strabo, Abbot of Reichenau (f 849), was a compilation from the 
Fathers with some original additions, which represented the Biblical 
scholarship of the Carolingian Renaissance. It retained immense 
authority throughout the Middle Age, and is quoted by Peter 
Lombard under the simple designation auctoritas. In the twelfth 
century the Glossa ordinaria was further amplified by 'the doctor 
of doctors,' Anselm of Laon (f 1117), and by his pupil Gilbert 
de la Porree (f 1154). This expanded edition was known as the 
Glossa interlinearis. 3 But it did not supersede the earlier work, 
and the two authorities were often cited side by side. 4 

The Expositio continua on the four Gospels of St. Thomas Aquinas, 
or as it had already come to be called by 1321 Catena aurea, is the 
greatest of mediaeval commentaries on the Gospels. 5 The catena 

1 Migne, P.O. cl. pp. 239-244. See history, contains a section ' Historia 
Sickenberger, T.u.U. xxi. i, pp. Evangelica' (Migne, P.L. cxcviii. 
47 f- 1537 f.) which is based on a harmony 

2 Migne, P.L. cxiv. pp. 243-355, on of the four Gospels. 

St. Luke. 5 On the Catena aurea see Dissert. 

3 See R. L. Poole, Mediaeval v. of the Dissertationes crilicae et 
Thought and Learning,* p. 114 n., apologeticae de gestis et scriptis ac 
with references there given. doctrina S. Thomae Aquin. by the 

4 Other commentators on the Dominican J. F. Bernhard de Rubeis, 
Gospel were: Christianus Druth- Venice, 1750, reprinted in new edition 
mams (c. 850), Migne, P.L. cvi. of St. Thomas (Rome, 1882), vol. i. 
J 5 O 3 n whom see R. Simon, Hist. pp. xlv-cccxlvi. The Catena aurea 
Grit, der N.T. p. 370 ; Bruno was translated into English under 
Astensis (^1125), Migne, P.L. clxv. Newman's editorship as a supplement 
333 5 Albertus Magnus (f 1289). The to the Library of the Fathers. The 
Historia Scholastica of Petrus Co- catena on St. Luke was translated 
mestor (twelfth century), the popular with Preface by Thomas Dudley 
mediaeval textbook of Scripture Rider, 1843. 


on Matthew was published between 1262 and 1264 with a dedication 
to Urban IV. The catenae on the other Gospels followed before 
1272. The catena of St. Thomas is distinguished from preceding 
Latin compilations by an extensive use of the Greek Fathers. 
Thomas did not select his citations direct from the sources but 
used a Latin translation of the catena of Nicetas. 1 Of the Latin 
Fathers he uses Ambrose, Augustine, certain homilies of Gregory, 
and Bede. The catena is most skilfully constructed. The general 
method is first to give a discussion on the connexion of a para- 
graph, for which purpose St. Thomas draws largely upon Cyril and 
Augustine, De Consensu. There follow quotations which give in 
order the literal or historical interpretation, followed by other quota- 
tions for the allegorical and mystical meanings of the paragraph. 

The Poslillae of Nicholas of Lyra, a Franciscan of the early 
fourteenth century, in the main follow the methods of preceding 
commentators. Nicholas had a considerable knowledge of Hebrew 
and devoted much ingenuity and erudition to elucidating the use 
of O.T. quotations in the N.T. Notes by Paul, Bishop of Burgos, a 
converted Jew, are generally added to the Postillae of Nicholas. 
They are drawn mainly from Jewish sources. Paul sets himself to 
criticise many of the conclusions of Nicholas of Lyra. 2 


As we approach the modern period the literature on the Gospels 
grows so extensive that this survey will only attempt to give some 
statement of the work of the chief writers and to indicate the main 
characteristics of the different stages in the study of the Gospels. 

The age of commentaries in the form of patristic compilations 
came to an end with the revival of Christian learning in the sixteenth 
century. The Fathers themselves were now re-edited and widely 
read in complete texts, and the spirit of a new age incarnate in 
.Erasmus turned attention direct to the newly recovered Greek text 

1 See letter ad Hannibaldum, quoted Opera (Rome), vo], j, p. cvii. 
2 Cf. R. Simon, op. cit. pp. 477 f. 


of the New Testament. The critical and grammatical notes of 
Laurentius Valla on the Greek text in the middle of the fifteenth 
century prepared the way. Erasmus' edition of the Greek text of 
the New Testament appeared at Basle in 1516. It included a new 
Latin translation and copious notes which were by no means 
confined to the strict exposition of the text, but, on occasion, dealt 
at large with contemporary abuses and corruptions of the Christian 
religion in the light of the authentic and newly recovered text of 
the teaching of Christ and his apostles. " The end which Erasmus 
desired in this work to serve was not so much scientific, as the 
practical end of Reformation, and therein as a matter of fact lies 
its historical significance." There is truth in this judgement of 
Stahelin's, 1 but the antithesis of ' scientific ' and ' practical ' would 
have seemed strange to Erasmus. As he saw the situation, the 
New Testament, recovered by true scholarship, was sitting in 
judgement on the Church. Erasmus was thus a progenitor both 
of the Reformation and of the philological studies on the New 
Testament texts which supervened upon the dogmatic era of the 

In his Greek Testament Erasmus prefixes to the Gospels by 
way of introduction the lives of the evangelists from St. Jerome, 
De viris ittustribus, and before each of the several Gospels the 
Greek version of Jerome's life of the evangelist (wrongly as- 
cribed to Sophronius) and the V7ro6eai<s of Theophylact. Erasmus 
further promoted his purpose of popularising the study of the 
New Testament by his Paraphrases. The Epistles were done 
first. The Paraphrase of St. Luke appeared in 1523 with a dedica- 
tion to Henry VIII., following on the Paraphrases of St. Matthew 
and of St. John. This work gives a continuous paraphrase and 
exposition of the text. In his expositions Erasmus draws freely 
upon the Fathers and by no means neglects the allegorical interpreta- 
tion. In this he occupied a transitional position, for the general 
tendency of the New Learning was not favourable to the allegorical 
exegesis, and the Reformers made it an avowed principle to confine 
themselves to direct exposition of the literal meaning of the text. 
1 Art. ' Erasmus,' Hauck-Herzog, R.E. 


We have no commentary on any of the Gospels from Luther. 1 
Calvin, on the other hand, commented on a harmony of Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke (1553). Here as elsewhere he shews himself a 
strong, sensible, and independent expositor. He confines himself 
to the literal meaning. The controversies of the age play their part 
in the work. 

Adnolationes in N.T. by Theodore Beza (1565, 1594) is the 
most learned of sixteenth-century Protestant commentaries. The 
doctrinal disputes of the age still play a large part in the work. 

The commentary of the Spanish Jesuit Maldonatus (fiS^S) on 
the Four Gospels, published posthumously 1596,. illustrates the 
influence of the New Learning on Biblical exposition within the 
Roman Church of the Counter-Reformation. Like the Protestants, 
whom he often sets himself to refute, Maldonatus confines himself 
almost entirely to the literal meaning. He is learned, forceful, 
judicious, and his commentary acquired a well-deserved fame. 

The change which came over exegesis during the sixteenth century 
is well illustrated by the interpretations of the parable of the Good 
Samaritan by Erasmus, Calvin, and Maldonatus. Erasmus con- 
cludes his paraphrase of the parable by reproducing the familiar 
patristic interpretation that the Good Samaritan is a figure of 
Christ and of his beneficent redemption of mankind. Calvin 
discusses the allegorical interpretations which have been proposed. 
Some he dismisses as inconclusive in themselves and unsatisfactory 
on doctrinal grounds. The interpretation of the Good Samaritan 
as Christ and of the host as the Church, which, he says, has the 
support of almost everybody, he allows to be plausible in itself. 
" But," he adds, " greater respect is due to Scripture than such as 
would allow us to transform its genuine meaning by this licence. 
Certainly it is clear to any man that these speculations go beyond 
the mind of Christ and that they are a device of curious men." 
Maldonatus interprets in a plain sense. He then adds : " Whether 
there be besides some mystical meaning, I will neither deny nor 

1 Luther did not re'ckon the his view, than the direct proclama- 

synoptic Gospels among the weightier tion of the Gospel in St. Paul. He 

parts of Scripture. Separate sayings placed the Gospel of St. John above 

and deeds of Jesus mattered less, in the other Gospels. 


affirm, but since all the ancient Fathers have handed it down with 
general agreement, it is very probable that the parable contains 
not only allegory in which indeed the Fathers have not all agreed 
but also a mystical meaning which God instilled into the minds of all 
the Fathers." He then recounts the usual patristic exegesis. But 
he concludes with a warning against the attempt to find a symbolic 
meaning in all the details of a parable : " Multa enim dici in para- 
bolis solere, non ut aliquid significetur, sed quia in re, in qua parabola 
consistit, ita fieri solet, itaque factum fuisse verisimile est." 1 

In the seventeenth century the outstanding name among com- 
mentators upon the Gospels is that of Grotius (fi645). His notes 
on the Gospels were partly written during the period of his imprison- 
ment (1619-21) and were completed at Paris after his escape. The 
controversial element, so prominent in the commentaries of the 
sixteenth century, now disappears. Grotius himself supported the 
Remonstrant revolt against Calvinism, but his chief purpose was 
to get behind the controversies of the Reformation epoch and 
work for the reunion of Christendom. With this purpose in view 
he deliberately refrains from referring to earlier commentators by 
name lest he should accentuate the existing divisions which he 
deplores. He declares that he accepts those interpretations of Holy 
Scripture which the Christian Churches have continuously accepted 
from the first age. In point of fact the traditional patristic exegesis 
does not figure very considerably in Grotius's brief yet learned com- 
ments on the Gospel text. He is first and foremost the pupil of 
J. J. Scaliger, and brings to bear upon the text the grammatical and 
philological methods which he learned from his master. 

Hammond, " the Father of English commentators " (fi66o), 
was a Royalist divine. Like Grotius he avoids the doctrinal 
controversies of the Reformation era, and at the same time seeks 
by the scholarly exegesis of Holy Scripture to escape the theological 
perils which beset the current claims to personal and individual 
inspiration. In his Paraphrases and Annotations upon all the 
Books of the New Testament (1653) he " purposely abstains from all 
doctrinal conclusions and deductions " as well as " from all postillary 

1 Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, supra, p. xxxv. 



observations and accommodations, moral or mystical anagogies." 
He wishes his readers to supplement him if necessary from Grotius, 
" from whom, as oft as I had nothing to add, I purposely avoided 
to transcribe anything." 

Two works which represent the exegetical labours of the first 
half of the eighteenth century have won a permanent place in the 
literature on the New Testament. 

The Gnomon (1742) of Bengel (1687-1752), a Lutheran prelate 
in Wiirtemberg, is a masterpiece of terse and scholarly exposition 
on the whole of the New Testament. 

J. J. Wettstein (1693-1754), professor at the Remonstrant 
College at Amsterdam, after being twice deprived of an ecclesiastical 
appointment at Basle on a charge of heterodoxy, made important 
contributions to the textual criticism of the New Testament (a 
subject which became prominent towards the end of the seventeenth 
century), and compiled a mass of material from classical and 
rabbinic sources illustrative of the text of the New Testament, of 
which all subsequent commentators down to the present day have 
made extensive use. 


From the second century to the eighteenth the Gospel according 
to St. Luke had been a constituent part of an authoritative Canon 
of Scripture. Widely as different schools and different eras had 
differed in their method of exegesis, they were all alike concerned 
to interpret a given text of Scripture. The value and authority of 
the text were not seriously in question. The age of the Illumination 
questioned all things, and it questioned the idea of a collection of 
inspired writings. The old naive acceptance of the authority of the 
Canon was weakened by Semler's historical researches into the early 
history of the Church, and it came to be realised that there was a 
time in Christian history when the Canon had not been. It was 
an inevitable further step to study the different books included in 
the Canon apart from presuppositions as to their inspiration and the 
authority which attached to them in virtue of their inclusion in the 


Canon. The governing idea of the Canon which constituted these 
particular books as scripture was brought clearly into consciousness 
and, so far as method was concerned, definitely set on one side. 

The new attitude is well expressed in the title of Lessing's small 
book on the Gospels, which may be regarded as the fountain source 
of modern Gospel criticism : A New Hypothesis concerning the Evan- 
gelists, considered as purely Human Writers of History. 1 Lessing 
recognised and stated the literary problem which was to engage the 
attention of critics during the next half-century. He saw that 
the similarities and differences between the synoptic Gospels called 
for some theory of their origin which allowed for literary relation- 
ship between them. Lessing held that the relationship was collateral. 
The canonical Gospels derive ultimately from an Aramaic Gospel 
which he identified with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 
This he held was originally composed shortly after the death of 
Christ, and subsequently was subjected to some re-editing. Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke are independent translations into Greek of various 
forms of this original Gospel. Lessing's theory was in its main 
outline adopted by Eichorn. 2 An alternative hypothesis was put 
forward by Griesbach. 3 Following up the theory of Augustine, 4 
that Mark was an abbreviation of Matthew, Griesbach held that an 
original Gospel was composed by Matthew in Greek. Luke depended 
upon Matthew, adding to Matthew material taken from oral tradi- 
tion. Mark was an abbreviation of Matthew and Luke. Griesbach's 
theory of the secondary character of Mark is of importance in the 
history of criticism, since it was taken over both by Strauss in his Life 
of Jesus (1835) and by the Tubingen leader, F. C. Baur. Herder 5 
looked for the original of the Gospels in an oral catechetical tradition, 
which, he supposed, extended from the Baptism of John to the 

1 Neue Hypolhese uber die Evange- mentariis decerptum esse monstratur, 
listen als bloss menschliche Geschicht- 1789-90. 

schreiber betrachtet, 1778, published 4 De Consensu, I. ii. 4 (Migne, P.L. 

1784; Sdmtliche WerJce. hrg. Goring, xxxiv. 1041). 

Band 18, pp. 203 f. 5 Regel der Zusammenstimmung 

2 Einleitung in d. N.T., 1804. f rer E ^ < s ihrer Ent- 

^ stehung und Ordnung, 1797. (Werke, 

3 Commentatio qua Marci evange- Stuttgart u. Tubingen, 1830, Zur 
Hum totum de Malthaei et Lucae com- Religion, Band 17.) 



Ascension and contained both narratives and discourse. This 
catechetical framework took shape in Palestine about A.D. 35-40. 
Mark represents a Greek version of this oral tradition. The same 
tradition was enlarged about A.D. 60 into the Aramaic Gospel of the 
Nazarenes, which in turn was the source both of Matthew and of 
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Luke he held to be dependent 
upon Palestinian tradition through the avroitTai and vTrrjperai,, 
and upon the Aramaic Gospel. He accurately describes Luke's work 
as " the first Christian history." The Gospel is "no collection 
of Gospel stories, like Mark ; no Jewish demonstrative argument, 
like Matthew. Luke wrote his history like a -pure Greek." 1 
Another theory as to the origin of the Gospels was put forward by 
Schleiermacher. In an essay on St. Luke's Gospel (1817) 2 he 
suggested that the synoptic Gospels were to be regarded as collec- 
tions formed out of a number of small writings (SLyyijcreis, Lk. i. 
1-4). Schleiermacher later abandoned this theory, 3 and taking 
his start from the testimony of Papias adopted the hypothesis 
of Mark and the Logia as the two fundamental sources of the 

A new direction was given to the study of the Gospels by the 
Tubingen critics Baur and Schwegler. Approaching the problem 
from the side of Church history, they aimed at defining positively 
the place of the several Gospels in the process of development through 
which the Christian religion passed. The Tubingen School has 
exercised a lasting influence upon the subject in that it emphasised 
the necessity of considering the motives and circumstances of the 
evangelists and their relation to the developing life of the Church. 
But the actual view which they entertained of the course of history 
was too largely determined a priori by the Hegelian philosophy, and 

1 Op. cit. p. 228. 

2 Schleiermacher's 

Essay on St. 
Luke was translated into English by 
ConnopThirlwall(i825). Previously 
to this Marsh had introduced the 
German criticism of the Gospels by 
his translation of Michaelis's Intro- 
duction to the N.T. (1793-1801), to 
which he added a Dissertation on 

the Four Gospels. But the English 
contribution to the criticism of the 
Gospels remained slight until towards 
the end of the last century, with the 
exception of Dr. E. A. Abbott's art. 
' Gospels,' for the gth edition of the 
Ency. Brit. 

3 Studien u. Kritiken, 1832; 


the particular critical theory which Baur maintained in his chief 
work 1 on the subject has totally collapsed. 

From the time of Semler attention had been directed afresh to 
the. accounts in the Fathers of Marcion's Gospel, which, it was 
affirmed by the Fathers, had been constructed by mutilation of 
St. Luke. The Patristic testimonies concerning the Gospels were 
not always trustworthy, and the early critics were unwilling to 
accept the Patristic statements on Marcion's Gospel at their face 
value. It was suspected that Marcion's Gospel, instead of being a 
mutilated version of Luke, was in reality an earlier form of Gospel. 
This was one of the corner-stones of Baur's criticism. He held that 


the Lucan Gospel was an amplification of the Gospel of Marcion. 2 
The other was that, with Griesbach, he held Mark to be derived 
from Matthew and Luke. The outcome of Baur's theory was that 
all the canonical Gospels were placed in the second century between 
the years 130 and 170. The earliest Gospel had been the Palestinian 
Gospel of Matthew, of which the Canonical Matthew was a later 
revision. Opposed to this was the Pauline Gospel used by Marcion, 
which had been later expanded and modified in an anti-Marcionite 
sense into the Canonical Luke. The Marcan Gospel, which was of a 
neutral character, had been based upon ' Matthew ' and ' Luke.' 

In the meantime order had been brought out of chaos in 
the literary problems as to the relation of the synoptic Gospels 
which had been first posed by Lessing, and the solution was 
not in the direction in which Baur was looking. In an article 
in Studien und Kritiken, 1835 , 3 Lachmann, taking the text of the 
synoptic Gospels as they stand, made a comparison of the order 
of the sections common to the three evangelists in each of the 
Gospels. The comparison shewed that the differences between the 
Gospels in the order of these sections were less extensive than was 
commonly supposed, and that where differences occurred the order 
of either Matthew or Luke was invariably supported by Mark. In 
no case did Matthew and Luke agree in their order against Mark. 

1 Kritische Untersuchungen iiber 2 Op. cit. pp. 395, 424. 

die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Ver- 3 De ordine narrationum in evan- 

hdltnis zu einander, ihren Character geliis synoptlcis. 
und Ursprung, 1847. 


The simplest hypothesis which satisfies these data is that the Gospels 
are interdependent and that Matthew and Luke each used and 
variously edited Mark. More detailed comparison of the Gospels in 
respect of language and wording shewed that here too the differences 
and resemblances group themselves in the same way. Agreements 
between Matthew and Luke against Mark are on the whole incon- 
spicuous, and the small residue which cannot easily be ascribed to 
accident have tended to diminish when the textual evidence is taken 
into account. In the most striking cases it is probable that textual 
assimilation has affected the existing text. 1 

We return, however, to the middle of the nineteenth century. 
The transposition of Mark to a position prior to Matthew and Luke, 
and the recognition that it was a source used in common by the 
other two synoptists, made havoc of Baur's scheme of the develop- 
ment of the early Church as represented in the supposed history of 


the Gospel literature. Even more fatal was the abandonment of the 
position that Marcion's Gospel was prior to canonical Luke. Hilgen- 
feld and Volkmar 2 maintained the priority of Luke, and Baur was 
himself convinced. In The Gospels in the Second Century, an early 
work (1876) of the late W. Sanday, pp. 222-230, the unity of 
style between the parts of Luke rejected by Marcion and those 
retained by him is triumphantly demonstrated by the impartial 
evidence of Bruder's Concordance. This was one of the first, 
examples of a method which has had good results elsewhere. 

From about the middle of the century the ' two source ' 
hypothesis succeeded in establishing itself with various modifications 
among critics. It was generally agreed that Mark was the earliest 
of the extant Gospels, and it was also generally agreed that another 
written source (Q) lay behind the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 
In some form or other these two conclusions have been worked into 
almost all the subsequent theories of the genesis of the synoptic 
Gospels, and there is to-day no disposition to retreat from the 
positions which Lachmann, C. G. Wilke, Weisse, and others secured. 

1 See the full discussion in Streeter, The Four Gospels, pt. ii. chap. xi. 
* The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark.' 

2 Das Evangelium Marcions, 1850. 


It is not necessary to emphasise the importance of these con- 
clusions. As against the Tubingen criticism there was a, tendency 
to return to a position nearer tradition in respect of the date of the 
Gospels, and ' source criticism ' seemed to shew that the Gospels 
when critically tested would yield a firm pathway by which men 
might reach beyond the evangelists to the historical Jesus. The 
discredit which had overtaken the Hegelian philosophy extended 
itself to the speculative interpretation of Christian history. The 
development of the Christian idea was neither an equivalent nor 
a substitute for faith in the historic Jesus Christ. In spite of the 
'mythical' theory of Strauss, and in spite of Tubingen, the lineaments 
of a historic figure might still be recovered from the Gospel texts 
by scientific research. 1 On the other hand, as against tradition, 
criticism had worked through to definite conclusions which made it 
no longer possible to regard the Gospels as being in the main inde- 
pendent and co-ordinate authorities giving direct, or almost direct, 
apostolic testimony to the life and teaching of Jesus. The Gospel 
of Matthew, according to tradition the earliest Gospel and the work 
of an apostle, was now seen to be a secondary work dependent upon 
another Gospel, itself but the work of an apostle's disciple. Similarly 
the Lucan Gospel was another edition of the same work. During 
the second half of the nineteenth century the new critical perspective 
tended to impose itself upon the minds of scholars. The principal 
works on St. Luke's Gospel from now onwards are generally con- 
ditioned by acceptance in some form of the new critical hypothesis, 
though in some cases with considerable modifications. Thus Kenan 
in the Vie de Jesus (ist ed. 1863) held the third Gospel to have been 
written shortly after 70 probably by Luke the disciple of St. Paul, 
and to be dependent upon earlier editions of Matthew and of Mark. 
But in Les fivangiles (1877) he held Luke to be dependent upon an 
edition of Mark, which differed but slightly from the canonical form, 
and to be independent of Matthew ; Luke also drew upon other 
sources both oral and documentary perhaps a Greek translation 
of a Hebrew Protevangelium and added some inventions of his 

1 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien (Leipzig, 1863), 
Pp. 418 f. 


own. Renan still dated the Gospel shortly after 70, and supposed it 
to have been written at Rome ; whereas Matthew and Mark are 
neutral in the controversies which agitated the Church, Luke, 
according to Renan, was an adherent of the Pauline policy and 
held views which were in entire conformity with those of Paul. 

The two source theory leaves open a number of questions, two 
of which are of especial importance. (l) What is the relation, if 
any, between Mark and Q ? (2) What is the origin and value of the 
material peculiar to the Lucan Gospel ? On the latter question there 
has been much speculation. B. Weiss, Die Quellen des Lukasevan- 
geliums (1907) (resuming the arguments of earlier works), held that 
besides Mark and Q Luke depended upon another single source of 
Palestinian origin containing both discourses and narratives which 
betrayed affinities with the Johannine tradition. P. Feine, Eine 


vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostel- 
geschichte (1891), argued for a synoptic Grundschrift prior to all the 
synoptic Gospels. Mark represents an amplification of this document. 
Matthew depended upon the Grundschrift, not upon Mark. Luke 
used Mark, the Grundschrift, and a special document in which the Q 
material was already combined with narratives and parables peculiar 
to the Gospel. Spitta, Die synoptische Grundschrift in ihrer Uber- 
lieferung durch das Lukasevangelium, 1912, argued that Luke had 
used mainly two sources Q and a Grundschrift which was also the 
foundation of Mark and Matthew. The Grundschrift, he held, was 
most truly represented by the narrative part of Luke. These 
hypotheses, so far as they concern the relation of Matthew and Luke 
to a supposed Grundschrift prior to Mark, have failed to establish 
themselves, but the hypothesis of a ' Proto-Luke ' somewhat similar 
to Feme's theory referred to above has been recently put forward 
in England by Streeter 1 and developed by Taylor. 2 

Loisy, L'lZvangile selon Luc (1924), attempts to distinguish between 
the present Gospel which he holds to be dependent upon St. Matthew 
and St. John (or possibly precanonical forms of these Gospels), 
assigning it provisionally to a date between 125 and 150, and the 

1 The Four Gospels, chap, viii., developing the argument of an article in 
The Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1921. 2 Behind the Third Gospel, 1926. 


original work of the auctor ad Theophilum. The latter, he thinks, was 
probably written about 80, and he sees no reason to question that 
the author was Luke, the companion of St. Paul. He conjectures 
tentatively that the original Gospel may have started, like Marcion's 
Gospel, with the preaching of Jesus at Capernaum and the call of the 
first disciples, being dependent upon a supposed precanonical form 
of Mark which Luke preferred to the canonical form of the Gospel if 
indeed Luke knew the canonical form at all. Loisy apparently thinks 
of reopening the question of the relation of the Lucan Gospel to the 
Gospel of Marcion. " The relation of our Gospel," he writes, " with 
that of Marcion may be less simple than is commonly supposed " 
(p. 62). But the hint is not developed further. Loisy's theory of 
the Gospel is really a pendant to his theory of the composition of 
Acts, and to do it justice it would be necessary to discuss the problems 
of Acts at length. In the meantime we may notice that the linguistic 
unity of the books is a grave objection to these attempts to distin- 
guish editions. Moreover, there seems to be no sufficient support 
for the conjecture that Marcion's Gospel in omitting the Mission of 
John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus really represented a 
more primitive type of Gospel than the canonical Gospels. Given 
Marcion's theology, it was inevitable that he should rule out the 
sections on John the Baptist. But there seems no reason why Luke 
should have shrunk from including them about the year 80 : by that 
time we may assume with some confidence that both Mark and Q, 
each with a prefatory account of John's Mission, were already in free 
circulation, and Luke would naturally follow his predecessors in 
this respect. 

We may now conclude this survey by noting certain tendencies 
in recent criticism which appear to be modifying the general ap- 
proach to the Gospels, and which are raising questions somewhat 
different from the quest for ' sources ' which was a natural sequel 
of the successful solution of the literary problem of the relations of 
the synoptic Gospels. 

It had always been recognised that behind the written Gospels 
there lay a period of oral tradition concerning the life and work 
of Jesus. Herder, as we have seen, had laid emphasis upon the oral 


character of the earliest tradition, though he conceived that this 
tradition had taken substantially the form of the later Gospel at a 
very early date. But the successful proof that the natural divergence 
of oral tradition was not the vera causa for the actual differences 
and resemblances between the synoptic Gospels naturally tended 
to concentrate the interest of criticism upon the task of recon- 
structing the documents which might be supposed to lie behind 
the canonical Gospels. The ideal of criticism was conceived, 
perhaps half unconsciously, as the recovery and historical valuation 
of early sources for the life of Jesus. The ' Marcan hypothesis ' 
generally held by critical writers on the life of Jesus started from 
the observation that the Marcan Gospel gives a sequence of narra- 
tive in which it seems possible to trace a certain development of 
plot. The intrigues against Jesus grow more menacing as the story 
proceeds, while on the other hand Jesus, after a period of public 
teaching, withdraws with his apostles into privacy and devotes 
himself to their private instruction, until at the end he once again 
appears on the public scene only to end his career on Golgotha. 
Though this framework is presupposed both in Matthew and Luke, 
it is to some extent distorted in those Gospels by rearrangement of 
the sections and by the intrusion of other matter, which other matter 
could often be shewn, both by source criticism and internal criticism, 
to be historically out of place where it stood. The ' Marcan hypo- 
thesis ' held that the Marcan view of the history was essentially 
the true historical view and passed judgement on the other Gospels 
as historical documents in the light of the evidence of Mark. But 
the hypothesis has itself been much weakened by criticism. Wrede's 
forceful interpretation of Mark found the Gospel dominated by 
the dogmatic and quite unhistorical idea of ' the Messianic secret ' 1 
which had been superimposed by the evangelist upon his materials. 
In reality, Wrede held, belief in the Messiahship of Jesus did not 
arise until after the death of Jesus. It was a deduction by the 
Church from their faith in the Resurrection. Wrede's criticism 
has, in its turn, been criticised. Johannes Weiss, in particular, 
has shewn the difficulty of deriving belief in the Messiahship from 
1 Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901. 


the Resurrection faith unless that idea of the person of Jesus had 
been already entertained while Jesus was preaching and teaching. 
The Resurrection would confirm, but it could not originate, the 
idea that Jesus was Messiah. What concerns us here to note is 
that Wrede succeeded in making it plausible to regard the structural 
unity of Mark as the creation of the evangelist rather than as a datum 
of tradition. Moreover, the historical connexions which the ' Marcan 
hypothesis ' found in Mark were often indicated but imperfectly, 
if at all, and the question presented itself whether the development 
of the plot was not rather a postulate of the hypothesis than an 
inference from the evidence. In a broad sense the Marcan Gospel, 
as even Wrede admitted, gave a true perspective : Jesus first 
appeared in Galilee with his message of the approach of the kingdom 
of God, and ultimately died as a malefactor at Jerusalem, as Mark 
narrates, but the order of the events and the disposition of the 
material in Mark were probably dictated rather by motives of 
literary suitability and convenience than of fidelity to a tradition. 
It is indeed the connexions between the sections which are often 
most clearly of a secondary character and which betray the editorial 
work of a writer who is combining separate materials from different 
sources. 1 The parts existed before the whole. The composite 
character of the Marcan Gospel is particularly evident in the two 
narratives of the feeding of the multitude. These are fairly clearly 
literary doublets, and there is good reason for suspecting that the 
surrounding sections are also parts of variant versions of the same 
cycle of stories. On the ' Marcan hypothesis ' this is a serious 

But the chief consideration which has told against the ' Marcan 
hypothesis ' is the inherent improbability of the supposition that 
a connected tradition of the history of the life had been transmitted 
across the thirty or forty eventful years which intervened between 
the Crucifixion and the writing of Mark. Memories and im- 
pressions, incidents, and above all sayings and teachings, would 
be recalled and recorded, but of a biographical interest in the 

1 See K. L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu, Berlin, 1919, and 
Dr. Rawlinson's edition of St. Mark, passim. 


development of the earthly life of Jesus at this period we have no 
evidence, and it is improbable that such an interest existed. 

The literary study of the Gospels did not raise these questions 
vividly. The tendency was to discount as far as possible the 
editorial element in the late stages of the literary tradition where 
it could be tested by comparative study and thus to try to restore 
a more or less reliable original. This method of regress to earlier 
sources had, and has, its very plain justification, but it is essential 
to recognise from the outset what are its limitations. These are 
twofold, (i) Jesus himself wrote nothing. (2) It may be safely 
assumed that his simple and unlettered disciples did not commit 
his teaching to writing at the time. It follows that, as we get further 
back, the literary evidence will grow more and more meagre, and 
if we could get back to the beginnings it would disappear. There 
is nothing here to correspond to the literary nucleus of authentic 
writings which, to all time, will represent the person and the preach- 
ing of the apostle Paul. At the time of the Crucifixion a body of 
men and women were in possession of memories and impressions 
of what Jesus had said and done, of what he had been to them and 
to others. Those memories were charged afresh by the faith in the 
Resurrection. The unattainable ideal of Gospel criticism is first 
to reconstruct the process by which those memories and impres- 
sions of the first disciples were transformed and translated within 
the Christian society into narratives and discourses, and then to 
trace the process of literary consolidation which welded the tradi- 
tional material into literary wholes. The probable extent of the 
contribution of individual memories should not be estimated too 
low. During the first generation after the Crucifixion there must 
have been a not inconsiderable number of persons in the churches 
who had themselves seen and heard the Lord. Pre-eminent among 
these would be the apostle Peter himself. Their personal recollec- 
tions would be especially valued, and their presence in the com- 
munity would be a check on the development of tradition. Yet 
the all-important consideration remains that the traditions about 
Jesus lived in the milieu of a society which was constituted by its 
faith in him as Christ and Lord. The faith, the needs, the diffi- 


culties, internal and external, of the community have played an 
essential part in the creation of the literature. The History of the 
Synoptic Tradition, the title of Bultmann's chief book on the 
criticism of the Gospels, describes accurately the task of criticism 
as it appears now to present itself. Unconvincing in detail as 
Bultmann often appears to be, his book is perhaps the most im- 
portant study of the Gospels of recent years, since it attempts to 
analyse and classify the whole body of material contained in the 
synoptic Gospels, and to shew how in their expansion and develop- 
ment the different types of narrative and discourse may be related 
to the life, needs, and interests of the growing Church. This close 
interdependence of our records of the life of Jesus and popular tradi- 
tion must condition our appreciation of their value. The literature 
is the creation of a historical community grouped around a concrete 
individual personality. On the one hand it must be recognised 
that accurate investigation of fact would be alien to the ideas and 
interests of such a society as the most primitive Churcjh. On the 
other hand a popular literature is uniquely fitted to convey 
truthful characterisation. The communal mind will feel, resent, and 
reject the inappropriate. 1 Thus in the Gospels the character and 
spirit of John the Baptist and of Jesus Christ are each of them 
conveyed with inimitable because unconscious skill. 2 

The Gospel according to St. Luke to some extent stands by 
itself. The Preface shews a sense of conscious and critical author- 
ship. But the Preface must not be pressed too far. The body 
of the Gospel shews that the author was throughout dependent 
upon the tradition as it had already shaped itself. Luke never 
really gets behind Mark, though at times he appears to criticise 
Mark's history. Luke was inevitably mastered by the only material 
that was available, and of all the Gospels Luke is richest in material 
which enables us to distinguish different genres in narrative and 
discourse which the tradition of the words and works of Jesus 
assumed in different circles and at different times. 

1 Cf. J. Weiss, Die drei dlteren fails to do justice to this truth of 
Evangelien, p. 44. the Gospels in characterisation. Cf. 

2 It seems to me to be a weakness pp. 47, 244 infra. 
in Bultmann's work that he often 



THE first Gospel, like the third, cannot be exactly dated, but, like 
the third, it certainly falls in the generation which followed the fall 
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Neither Gospel is dependent upon the 
other, 1 and it is very likely that the two are almost contemporary. 
Early in the second century, at the time of Ignatius, St. Matthew 
appears to have been the official Gospel of the Church of Antioch, 
and it was perhaps composed in that Church somewhere between the 
years 80 and 90. Luke was perhaps written about the same time 
by a Gentile Christian resident in Rome. Different as the two 

' Gospels are in tone and in general treatment, the resemblances are 
even more striking. Each evangelist has based his work upon the 

, same Marcan Gospel. Each evangelist has incorporated with Mark 
the same collection of sayings and discourses (Q). Each evangelist 
has prefixed to the Marcan story narratives concerning the birth 


1 Both Gospels have amplified the criminate with meticulous precision 
Marcan Passion narrative, but their between Marcan and non-Marcan 
- additions coincide at no point. The material ; he must then have pro- 
Birth stories in the two Gospels shew ceeded with the utmost care to tear 
no signs of contact, and the treatment every little piece of non-Marcan 
both of Mark and Q is independent. material he desired to use from the 
"Subsequent to the Temptation story, context of Mark in which it appeared 
there is not a single case in which in Matthew in spite of the fact that 
Matthew and Luke agree in insert- contexts in Matthew are always ex- 
ing the same saying (from Q) at the ceedingly appropriate in order to 
same point in the Marcan outline. If, re-insert it into a different context 
then, Luke derived this material from of Mark, having no special appro- 
Matthew, he must have gone through priateness " (Streeter, Four Gospels, 
both Matthew and Mark so as to dis- p. 183). 



of Jesus Christ. Each evangeKst has completed the Marcan story 
at the end with accounts of appearances of the risen Christ and of 
the commission of Christ to the Apostles to evangelise the world. 
Each evangelist interpolates a genealogy of the Lord. It may be 
presumed that each was influenced by the same popular sensitiveness 
to certain inadequacies of the Marcan Gospel and the same desire 
to consolidate the tradition in a definitive form. Matthew and Luke 
may be regarded as variant types of the same definitive form in 
which the tradition of the words and works of Jesus Christ ultimately 
came to rest. When the Church in the second century gradually 
felt its way to the recognition of an authoritative Gospel Canon, 
these two Gospels with their predecessor Mark came to be accepted 
as normative for the whole Church. No further revising or editing 
of the tradition had been found necessary. The Fourth member of 
the Canon the Gospel according to St. John was indeed later in 
date. But St. John's Gospel represents a recasting of the tradition 
under new impulses rather than a consolidation and expansion of 
traditional material. The distinction between St. John and the 
synoptists is not indeed absolute. There are approximations to a 
Johannine standpoint in the synoptists, and in St. John the tradi- 
tional material is integral to the book. But in the main the dis- 
tinction holds that whereas St. John's Gospel stands apart as an 
original creation, St. Matthew and St. Luke are best regarded as the 
last terms in a long process of literary evolution. 

The Gospel according to St. Luke is built upon a fairly clear ' 
external plan : 

i., ii. The Infancy and Childhood of John the Baptist and of 

iii.-iv. 13. The Mission of John. His Baptism of Jesus. The 

Temptation of Jesus. 

iv. 14-ix. 50. The Ministry of Jesus in Galilee. 

ix. 5i-xix. 48. The journey of Jesus and his disciples from Galilee to 

xx.-xxiv. The last days in Jerusalem. The Crucifixion. The 
Appearances of the risen Lord. 

This plan has been taken over from St. Mark, and the non-Marcan 


1 material has been built into the Marcan framework. 1 There is an \ 

extension at the beginning, an extension at the end, and two con- 
siderable interpolations in the middle. The Galilean ministry is 

enriched with the Sermon on the Plain, the healing of the Centurion's 
servant, the raising of the widow's son at Nain, the messengers of 
John, the anointing of Jesus by a woman. The other additional 
matter is thrown for the most part into the journey from the North 
to the South, which in Mark is related without any detail. 

The greater part of the Marcan Gospel is incorporated in Luke. 
With a few exceptions the Marcan order is reproduced, and except 
in the narratives of the Passion and Resurrection, which stand by 

themselves, the greater number of the smaller changes may be 
brought under the heads of (i) abbreviation, (2) improvement of 
the wording. 

A certain number of Marcan sections are omitted because Luke 

has parallel narratives from another source, and he wishes to avoid 
duplication. Thus (i) Mark's version of the call of Simon, Andrew, 

1 James, and John (i. 16-20) is omitted and replaced by a variant 

1 Streeter, on the other hand, sug- 
gests that the non-Marcan sections of 
the Gospel ' Proto-Luke ' should 
be regarded as the fundamental docu- 
ment, into which the Marcan material 
has been ' interpolated ' at a later 
stage. I dissent from this suggestion, 
primarily because, whereas Mark ap- 
pears to give a clue to the disposi- 
tion of ' Proto-Luke ' in the existing 
Gospel, the subtraction of Marcan 
material leaves an amorphous collec-' 
tion of narrative and discourse the 
greater part of which is thrown with- 
out intelligible reason into the unsuit- 
able form of a ' travel document ' 
(ix. 52-xviii.). Moreover, signs of the 
use of Mark are clear both in the 
account of John's mission (iii. 3 and 
prob. also iii. 16) and above all in 
the Passion narratives. In the latter 
not only are there complete sections 
which are unmistakably taken from 
Mark (e.g. xxii. 7-13, 54-61), but 

Marcan phrases appear in the middle 
of sections which in other respects 
differ considerably from Mark (see 
e.g. xxii. iga, 22, 47, 52, 71 ; xxiii. 3). 
These signs of Mark are intelligible 
if the Lucan narrative is a recasting 
and expansion of the Marcan text. 
If, however, Luke had already written 
or found a full and independent non- 
Marcan narrative, it seems unlikely 
that afterwards he would have in- 
terpolated occasional sentences and 
verses from Mark (see below, p. Ixiv). 
It appears to me, therefore, that Mark 
must be regarded as a determining 
factor in the construction of the exist- 
ing book from the outset. This, how- 
ever, is not necessarily inconsistent 
with the hypothesis that Q and some 
of Luke's peculiar material may have 
been already combined, and may 
have lain before Luke as a single 
document. Cf. below, p. Ixxv. 

A.JUL v -^ : ' - 1 '-' 


version, which is inserted at a somewhat later point in the Marcan 
order (Luke v. I f .). 

(2) The controversy on casting out devils by Beelzebub (Mk. iii. 
22-30) is omitted at the corresponding place in Luke, but is replaced 
by a similar narrative (from Q) at xi. 14-22. Similarly the saying 
concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in the same Marcan 
context is represented by a variant at xii. lob. 

(3) The parable of the Mustard Seed (Mk. iv. 30-32) is omitted 
at Lk. viii., but a variant version (from Q) appears at xiii. 18, 19. 
(The parable of ' the seed growing secretly ' which in Mark makes 
a pair with ' the mustard seed ' has also dropped out. In Lk. xiii., 
as in Mt. xiii., the parable of the leaven is paired with the mustard 

(4) Mark's narrative of the visit to Nazareth (vi. 1-6) is omitted 
and replaced by a longer variant which stands as an introductory 
scene to the whole story of the ministry (Luke iv. 16 f.). 

(5) The question of the Scribe (Mk. xii. 28-34) is omitted at 
Lk. xx. The preface to the parable of the Good Samaritan (x. 25) 
had already provided an alternative. 

(6) The anointing of Jesus by a woman at Bethany (Mk. xiv. 
3-9) is omitted. But a similar story had already been incorporated 
at vii. 36 f . 

Other omissions find partial parallels in non-Marcan material. 
Thus the question of divorce raised by the omitted narrative of 
Mk. x. 1-12 is dealt with in the single verse xvi. 18. The story 
of the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mk. x. 35 f.) may perhaps 
have been distasteful to the evangelist on other grounds (see below, 
p. Ixiii), but there is a counterpart to the subsequent sayings of Jesus 
in the Lucan version of the Supper (c. xxii.). The story of the 
execution of John the Baptist (Mk. vi. 17 f., omitted at Lk. ix. 9) 
was perhaps felt to be an interruption of the narrative, and Luke 
may also have been critical of it on historical grounds. The wither- 
ing of the fig tree (Mk. xi. 12-14, 20-25) was almost certainly a 
part of Luke's text of Mark (cf. Lk. xvii. 6 n.), but probably did not ' 
appear worthy of inclusion. 

Besides other minor editorial omissions from Mark, there is one 



long section omitted from Mark which calls for further notice. At 
ix. 17 Luke passes direct from Mk. vi. 44 (the feeding of the five 
thousand) to viii. 26 (the confession of Peter), thus omitting : 

Mk. vi. 45-52. Jesus walks on the sea. 
53-56. Healing at Gennesaret. 
vii. 1-23. Controversy with the Pharisees on the Jewish regulations 

concerning defilement. 
24-30. Journey to the districts of Tyre. The Syrophenician's 

daughter healed. 

31-37. Healing of a deaf man in Decapolis. 
viii. i-io. Feeding of four thousand. 
11-13. Pharisees seek a sign. 

14-21. Discourse on the boat concerning the leaven of the 
Pharisees and of Herod and concerning the two 
feedings of the multitudes. 
22-26. The healing of a blind man at Bethsaida. 

It has been supposed that the explanation of this omission is that 
Luke read an edition of Mark which did not contain the omitted 
sections, 1 and that the Lucan Gospel thus affords evidence as to an 
earlier form of St. Mark. But as we have no other weighty grounds 
for supposing that Luke used Mark in a form essentially different 
from that which we possess, it is reasonable to consider motives 
which, on the hypothesis that Luke knew the present form of Mark, 
may be supposed to have influenced him in making the omission. 

First, however, an objection to the conjecture derived from the 
internal criticism of Mark calls for notice. It is a reasonable supposi- 
tion that Mark has incorporated two variant versions of the same 
cycle of events each beginning with an account of the feeding of the 
multitude : Mk. vi. 3O-vii. 37 and viii. 1-26. If this surmise is 
well founded, it tells against the theory that an earlier form of Mark 

1 Stanton (G.H.D. ii. p. 156) thinks 
that some of the omitted sections 
were not present in Luke's edition of 
Mark, but that others (vii. 24-37, 
viii. 11-13, I 5> 22-26) must always 
have been part of Mark. The reasons 
assigned for questioning the remaining 
sections are not in themselves decisi ve, 
and Stanton's hypothesis does not 

materially ease the problem from 
which the discussion sets out, viz. 
why did Luke make omissions ? If 
we may suppose that Luke read and 
omitted Mk. vii. 24-37 e * c - & seems 
equally easy and more satisfactory to 
suppose that he read all the sections 
and omitted them all. 


corresponded to the Lucan sequence of Marcan material, for this 
supposition requires us to break into one of the two conjectural 
complexes of Marcan narrative. 

It may be added that Luke himself probably betrays acquaintance 
with what he has omitted by his interpolated reference to Bethsaida 
at ix. 10. Of. Mark vi. 45. 

A combination of motives may have influenced Luke's procedure. 
The Gospel as it stands would have made a long roll Kenyon esti- 
mates the length at about 30 or 31 feet and Luke may have found 
it necessary to exercise economy in the use of his material. Moreover, 
Luke clearly avoids doublets. His critical instinct will have taught 
him to regard the feeding of the four thousand and the feeding of the 
five thousand as doublets. The omission of viii. i-io would require 
a drastic re- writing of w. 14-21. It would be easier to sacrifice the 
latter section, especially as the meaning of the text is obscure. (It 
may be noted that Lk. xii. 1, which has no counterpart in the corre- 
sponding text of Mt. x. 26 f., perhaps shews acquaintance with 
Mk. viii. 15.) There is a parallel to Mk. viii. 11-13 m Lk. xi. 16, 29. 
The healing of the blind man, Mk. viii. 22-26, is effected with apparent 
difficulty, and for this reason may not have commended itself to 
Luke. The same may be said of the similar story of the healing of 
the dumb man, vii. 31-37, which precedes the feeding of the four 
thousand. 1 LrMk. vii. 24-30, v. 27 could not fail to be a stumbling- 
block to the evangelist and his Gentile public, vii. 1-23 may well 
have seemed to be lacking in relevance for Gentile readers, vi. 45-52 
might be treated as a duplicate of Lk. viii. 22-25 ( Mk. iv. 35-41). 
v i- 53-56 adds little to what has been already narrated elsewhere. 
For some such reasons as these Luke may have felt that he was 
sacrificing little of value by this extensive omission from his source. 

An examination of Luke's treatment of the Marcan text shews 
him to have carried through a drastic revision of the language. The 
characteristic Marcan idioms are obliterated, and the whole narrative 
is made smoother and more consecutive. Thus adverbial 7ro\\d and 
adverbial ev6vs z are entirely eliminated from the Marcan sections. 

1 Both these miracles are also omitted by Matthew, 
occurs once only in Luke (vi. 49) and that in a non-Marcan setting. 


With, one exception (viii. 49) the Marcan historic present is every- 
where transposed into an imperfect or an aorist. 1 He also regularly 
eases the connexion between a fresh paragraph and its predecessor 
by the introduction of some vague note of time or place, 2 and very 
frequently opens a paragraph with the Biblical e^evero &e. 3 On 
the other hand, from a historical point of view, he is on the whole 
conservative in his treatment of the substance of his material. He 
frequently abbreviates, omitting detail which might seem irrelevant 
(e.g. in c. iii. particulars about the Baptist's mode of life), and in 
so doing he occasionally obscures the course of the story (see notes 
on c. viii., the raising of Jairus's daughter). He has no scruple in 
transposing (e.g. vi. 12 f ., viii. 19, xviii. 35) or fusing recorded events 
(e.g. xix. 45) if by so doing he will improve the literary connexion 
or the dramatic setting. Again, a tendency which became more 
pronounced in the later forms of the Gospel story, particularly in 
St. John, to identify speakers and subordinate figures in the tradition 
is also to be noticed in St. Luke. Thus at viii. 45 a question is 
assigned to Peter which in Mark is ascribed vaguely to the disciples. 
At xxii. 8 the two unnamed disciples of Mark xiv. who go to make 
the preparations for the supper are identified as Peter and John. 
On the other hand, at xxi. 7 the names of the four questioners which 
are given in Mk. xiii. 3 disappear. (See notes ad loc.) 

Other motives may probably be traced in Luke's editorial pro- 
cedure. A sense of reverence for the person of Jesus leads him to 
tone down Marcan phrases which ascribe sternness or apparent 
harshness to the Lord (cf. Lk. v. 14 with Mk. i. 43 ; Lk. vi. 10 with 
Mk. iii. 5). He emphasises the Lord's instinctive knowledge of men 
(vi. 8, cf. Mk. iii. 3). For a similar reason he omits from Mark 
(iii. 19-21) the statement that his family thought him mad. He 
also omits the cry from the cross, " Eloi, Eloi ..." A certain 

1 Sir John Hawkins (Home Synop- 22. Acts gives 13 historic presents. 

ticae, 2 pp. 143 f.) finds a total of 4 Against this are to be set, in Matthew, 

historic presents in narrative in St. 78 historic presents in narrative and 

Luke, viz. (besides viii. 49) vii. 40, 15 in parables ; and in Mark 151 in 

xi. 37, 45 [add xxiv. 12 and 36 in narrative, none in parables, 

agreement with John in ' Western 2 E.g. v. 12, 17, 27 ; vi. 6, 12, etc. 

non - interpolations ']. Also 4 in 3 See note on i. 8. 
parables : xiii. 8, xvi. 7, 29, xix. 


devout psychological interest leads him to note, without authority 
from his source, that Jesus was praying when the Spirit descended 
upon him after his baptism, and again when he was transfigured 
in the mountain. Reverence for members of the apostolic college 
is probably responsible for the omission of the rebuke of Peter after 
his confession of the Messiahship, and also for the omission of the 
ambitious request of the sons of Zebedee. Perhaps for a similar 
reason at viii. 10 he omits from Mk. iv. 13 the words KOL X^yet avrols 
OVK oiBare r-qv irapa^ok^v ravrijv, Kal TTW? 7racra9 ra? irapa- 
/3oXa? <yi>Ma-e<706 ; with their implied rebuke. Again, in the account 
of the storm on the sea (viii. 22 f .), the impatient plaint of the apostles 
in Mark is toned down to a simple appeal, and in the response of 
Jesus the Marcan words rl SeCkol eare ; drop out. In the scene 
in the garden Luke explains, without Marcan authority, that the 
disciples were sleeping ' for grief.' And after the arrest he forbears 
to record that the disciples ' forsook him and fled.' 

The words of Jesus are generally reproduced without material 
change. But on occasion a new idea is introduced which is not 
present in the source. (Compare Lk. v. 36 with Mk. ii. 21, and see 
notes ad loc.) The parable of the Sower affords a good illustration of 
Luke's method of compression and elucidation, and the interpretation 
of the same parable shews a tendency to interpolate the more or 
less conventional language of Church piety into his source. 

In his account of the Passion and Resurrection Luke has treated 
the Marcan source with greater freedom than elsewhere. Not only 
does he appear to re-write freely, but, assuming Mark to be his source, 
he has transposed the order of a number of incidents and paragraphs. 
These phenomena lend the chief support to the theories of Feine, 
Streeter, and others that Luke has here followed some other con- 
tinuous source which, in the main, he has preferred to Mark. It is 
argued in the special introductions and notes on these chapters that 
it is, on the whole, easier to assume that here too Mark has provided 
the foundation of the story. The additional matter in general seems 
to be secondary. The rearrangements are more extensive, but not 
essentially different from what is found elsewhere. If Luke wished 
to expand the narrative of the Last Supper, it would be not un- 



natural to throw the distribution of the bread and wine to the begin- 
ning, and to group together conversation and discourse at the close. 
Again, Luke has seen the inconsistency implied in Mark's statement 
that objection was raised to effecting the arrest on the night of the 
feast when compared with the following narrative, and he was 
probably also alive to the unlikelihood of a full meeting of the 
Sanhedrin late on the night of the Passover. Luke's own historical 
criticism may thus be held to account for the chief transpositions 
in the narrative of the events subsequent to the arrest. And the 
outstanding consideration remains that at crucial points the Marcan 
source unmistakably shews through. 1 (See above, p. Iviii. n.) 

Comparison of the third Gospel with the first shews that Matthew 
and Luke used in common another Greek source (Q) which consisted 
mainly, but not exclusively, of sayings and discourse. The exact 
extent and the exact wording of this lost document must remain 
conjectural. It is of course possible that certain passages, though 
represented in one only of the two Gospels, are nevertheless derived 
from Q. The following sections in Luke may be ascribed with some 
certainty to this lost document : 

iii. 7-9, 16-17. The preaching of John. 

iv. 1-13. The temptation of Jesus. 
vi. 20-49. The great sermon, 
vii. i-io. The healing of the centurion's servant. 

18-34. Discourse on John the Baptist, 
ix. 57-60. Two would-be disciples, 
x. 2-16. Charge to the seventy disciples. 

1 Of. the following judgement by 
Sir John Hawkins (Oxford Studies in 
the Synoptic Problem 3 y. 90) : " The 
well-known theory of Feine and others 
that Luke had before him some kind 
of record, or early Gospel, which he 
used as a third source, in addition to, 
and frequently in preference to, Mark 
and the Logia, at once suggests itself. 
And I used to think that the strongest 
arguments in favour of that theory 
were to be found in his Passion- 
narrative. But the closer investiga- 
tion, of which I have been here sum- 

marising the results, has impressed 
upon me that such a ' three-document 
hypothesis,' as it may be called, 
does not give much help towards the 
interpretation of the phenomena here 
presented to us. Luke's additions are 
(unlike Matthew's) so mixed up with 
the Grundschrif t, and they have caused 
alterations and modifications of such 
kinds, that they suggest a long and 
gradual conflation in the mind rather 
than a simple conflation by the pen." 
(Italics mine.) 


x. 21-24. Thanksgiving to the Father, and benediction upon the 

xi. 2-4, 9-13. On prayer. 

14-26. On casting out devils. 
29-35. On granting a sign, and other sayings. 
39-52. Woes on Pharisees. 

xii. 2-10. Fear nought save God, and other sayings. 
22-34. Be n t anxious. 
39-46. Watch. 

51-53. I am not come to send peace. 
58-59. Agree with thine adversary, 
xiii. 24. The narrow door. 

28-29. They shall come from the East and the West. 
34-35 Jerusalem, Jerusalem ! 
xiv. 16-24. The great Supper. 
26-27. On discipleship. 
34-35. Salt is good, 
xv. 4-6. The lost sheep, 
xvi. 13. No man can serve two masters. 

16-18. Sayings on the law. 

xvii. 22-37 ( or P ar ts). On the revelation of the Son of Man. 
xix. 11-27. The parable of the pounds, 
xxii. 30. The judges of the twelve tribes. 

Matthew has fitted in the Q material at suitable points in the 
Marean narrative, freely transposing and combining his sources. 
Luke's procedure is different. He follows Mark continuously for 
long stretches, and interpolates non-Marcan material in blocks. It 
is reasonable to conjecture that Luke has, on the whole, preserved 
the original order of Q, as he has, on the whole, preserved the 
original order of Mark. Yet Luke's tendency to group together 
discourses which have some point of contact (e.g. in c. xiv.) may have 
disturbed the order of the source. The greater part of the Q material 
falls in the central section of the Gospel. 

It is hard to make any general statement as to the modifications 
introduced by the two evangelists. Sometimes one, sometimes the 
other, seems to have retained more closely the phrasing of the source. 
On the whole Luke's version is perhaps the closer to the original. 
" It is fresher and less biblical " (Wellhausen). On the other 
hand, here too we can detect, by a comparison with Matthew, the 


occasional insertion of a theological term from the vocabulary of 
the Church into a saying of the Lord (cf. Lk. xi. 13 with Mt. vii. n, 
Lk. xi. 42 with Mt. xxiii. 23). On occasion, too, Luke seems to 
re-write an obscure saying which Matthew has treated in a more 
conservative manner (cf. Lk. xvi. 16 with Mt. xi. 12). Again, in 
improving the structure of a Greek sentence Luke seems not in- 
frequently to be insensible to a parallelism in the thought and 
phraseology of his source which has been preserved by Matthew. 

The resemblances between Matthew and Luke are often so close 
(e.g. in the account of the preaching of John, and of the visit of the 
messengers of John with the subsequent sayings) that there is no 
room for doubt that a single Greek source lies behind the two 
Gospels. But differences elsewhere are sufficiently striking to make 
it probable that it lay before the evangelists in somewhat different 
versions. Matthew has freely conflated Q with discourse material 
from Mark and from other sources. Luke conflates less, but he too 
appears to be not entirely a stranger to this method of composition 
(cf. e.g. xvii. 20 f. with notes). 

Besides the Marcan material and Q there is a large body of 
narrative and discourse peculiar to the third evangelist, as to the 
origin of which we are reduced to conjecture. A certain measure of 
literary creation may be plausibly ascribed to the evangelist himself. 
Possibly, for example, iii. 10-14 (the Baptist and his questioners), 
parts of iv. 16 f. (the Sermon at Nazareth), xix. 41-44 (the 
lament of Jesus over the city), a great part of xxiv. 13-32 (the 
journey to Emmaus), and probably the whole of xxiv. 44-end 
may be set to the account of Luke. But he certainly had other 
literary material at his command besides Mark and Q. 

The following are the chief passages peculiar to the third Gospel : 

i., ii. Narratives of the birth and infancy of John and Jesus, 
iii. 10-14. Questions to the Baptist, 
iv. 14-30. Sermon at Nazareth. 

v. i-n. Call of Peter, 
vi. 24-26. Woes on the rich and the happy, 
vii. 11-17. Th- e son ^ ^ ne widow of Nain. 

36-50. Jesus anointed by a woman at the house of a Pharisee, 
viii. 1-3. Women who followed Jesus. 


ix. 51-56. Rejection by a Samaritan village. 

61-62. " Suffer me to say farewell." 

x. 17-20. The return, of the seventy. 

25-37. The Good Samaritan. 

38-42. Martha and Mary. 

xi. 5-8. The importunate friend. 

27-28. Blessing on the mother of Jesus, 

xii. 13-21. The parable of the Rich Fool. 

35-38. " Let your loins be girded." 

47-48. Few stripes and many stripes. 

49-50. " I came to cast fire on the earth." 

54-57. The face of the heaven and the signs of the times, 

xiii. 1-5. Galileans murdered by Pilate ; the fall of a tower in Siloam. 

6-9. Parable of the Fig Tree. 

10-17. Woman healed on the Sabbath day. 

31-33. " Go hence, for Herod seeks to slay thee." 

xiv. 1-6. Dropsical man healed on the Sabbath. 

7-11. On taking the lowest seat. 

12-14. Invite the poor. 

28-33. Parables : on building a tower ; on going to war. 

xv. 8-10. Parable of the lost coin. 

11-30. Parable of the two sons, 

xvi. 1-12. Parable of the unjust steward, and following sayings. 

19-31. Dives and Lazarus, 

xvii. 7-10. A lord and his servant. 

11-19. Ten lepers healed. 

20-22,28-31.. Sayings on the sudden coming of the Son of Man. 

xviii. 1-8. Parable of the unrighteous judge. 

9-14. The Pharisee and the Publican, 

xix. i-io. Zacchaeus. 

41-44. Jesus weeps over the city, 
xxii. 1-28 (parts). Sayings at the Last Supper, 
xxiii. 5-12. Jesus before Herod. 

26-32. The weeping women. 

39-43. The penitent thief, 

xxiv. 13-35. The appearance on the way to Emmaus. 

36-43. Jesus appears to the disciples at Jerusalem and eats before 


44-53. The parting at Bethany. 

It is perhaps improbable that Luke derived the whole of this 
heterogeneous body of material from a single source. The birth 
narratives certainly stand apart with distinct characteristics of their 


own. For the rest we may note certain salient features common to 
several of the sections. 

There is a group of narratives more or less parallel to narratives 
in Mark. In some cases, as we have already noted, these have been 
allowed to replace Marcan parallels. In other cases (e.g. healings 
on the Sabbath, xiii., xiv., cf. vi. 6 f.; Jesus the guest of a publican, 
xix., cf. v. 29 f . ; the healing of lepers, xvii., cf. v. 12 f.) the Marcan 
counterparts are not disturbed. The welcome accorded by Jesus 
to the penitent outcast in contrast with the neglect or contempt of 
the more respectable professors of religion is a theme which recurs. 
That Jesus came to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance 
is already told us in Mark. But Mark gives us no concrete presenta- 
tion of the penitent publicans and sinners : the publican Levi 
answers the call to follow Jesus, but the Marcan narrative does not 
enter into the circumstances or the sentiments of the converted man. 
Contrast with this the Lucan story of Zacchaeus (c. xix.). Again, 
the woman who anoints Jesus appears both in Mark and in the 
special Lucan material. But in Luke she is a prostitute, and her 
devotion is presented as a foil to the neglect of the Pharisee who is 
Jesus' host. The pericope de adultera which finds a place in the MS. 
tradition of St. John's Gospel (and, in the Ferrar group of MSS., in 
Luke c. xx.) is strikingly similar in tone and colouring, and may 
well have come from the same cycle of tradition. 

Some of the Lucan narratives give us a little story complete in 
itself, in which the differing characters and conflicting motives of the 
actors contribute to the whole : the beautiful story of Martha, Mary 
and Jesus, and the dialogue between the penitent robber, his fellow- 
malefactor, and Jesus on the cross are examples. The healing of 
the ten lepers (c. xvii.) is particularly instructive in this respect. The 
story is fairly clearly a variant and an expansion of the story of the 
healing of the leper which appears in Mk. i. 40 (Lk. v. 12 f.). The 
main motifs recur. The appeal of the leper, the pity of Jesus, the 
command to shew himself to the priest, are all retained in the later 
variant. But a miracle which shews the mercy and the power of 
Jesus, and perhaps his respect for the Mosaic Law, has now been 
developed into a little story which leads up to a definite moral. 


The journey to the priests makes the opportunity for the healing 
to take effect, and the story culminates in the return to Jesus of 
the outcast Samaritan, whose gratitude is contrasted with the 
ingratitude of his Jewish fellows. 

Corresponding to the new type of narrative is a new type of 
' parable ' which is found in these Lucan sections, and here only. 
The parables of the Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool, Dives and 
Lazarus, the Pharisee and the Publican, are none of them true 
parables, inasmuch as they do not teach by analogy. They are 
stories which, by giving examples of types, of character, convey 
directly their own moral. The parable of the two sons almost falls 
into the same category, for the relation between the prodigal and 
his father is more than analogy to the relation of the penitent to the 
Father in heaven. 

Three other parables peculiar to Luke the Unjust Steward 
(c. xvi.), the Unjust Judge (c. xviii.), and the Importunate Friend 
(c. xi.) may be regarded as a group to themselves, since they are 
marked by certain striking similarities both in form (see notes and 
special introductions) and in content. Like most of the synoptic 
parables, and unlike the group of Lucan parables last considered, 
these parables all teach by analogy ; but they are unique among 
the parables in that the point which in each of them affords 
analogy to a spiritual truth, portrays conduct which in itself is 
reprehensible and is recognised as such. 

For the most part Luke may be supposed to have incorporated 
his material without considerable change. But it was his aim to 
write a connected narrative (fcade^ij^ ypd^ai), and accordingly we 
find the discourses and parables set in a quasi-historical setting which 
in general is probably to be ascribed to the evangelist himself (x. i, 
xi. 16, 37, xii. I, xv. 1-2). Sometimes (e.g. c. xiv.) the setting is 
highly artificial and unconvincing. We may also observe that a 
scene which at first sight appears to be a harmonious and coherent 
whole, is found not infrequently on closer inspection to be a com- 
bination of material which is not truly coherent. A peculiarly 
striking example is the parable of the debtors which is worked into 
the Lucan account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman (see intro- 


occasional insertion of a theological term from the vocabulary of 
the Church into a saying of the Lord (cf. Lk. xi. 13 with Mt. vii. II, 
Lk. xi. 42 with Mt. xxiii. 23). On occasion, too, Luke seems to 
re- write an obscure saying which Matthew has treated in a more 
conservative manner (cf. Lk. xvi. 16 with Mt. xi. 12). Again, in 
improving the structure of a Greek sentence Luke seems not in- 
frequently to be insensible to a parallelism in the thought and 
phraseology of his source which has been preserved by Matthew. 

The resemblances between Matthew and Luke are often so close 
(e.g. in the account of the preaching of John, and of the visit of the 
messengers of John with the subsequent sayings) that there is no 
room for doubt that a single Greek source lies behind the two 
Gospels. But differences elsewhere are sufficiently striking to make 
it probable that it lay before the evangelists in somewhat different 
versions. Matthew has freely conflated Q with discourse material 
from Mark and from other sources. Luke conflates less, but he too 
appears to be not entirely a stranger to this method of composition 
(cf. e.g. xvii. 20 f. with notes). 

Besides the Marcan material and Q there is a large body of 
narrative and discourse peculiar to the third evangelist, as to the 
origin of which we are reduced to conjecture. A certain measure of 
literary creation may be plausibly ascribed to the evangelist himself. 
Possibly, for example, iii. 10-14 (the Baptist and his questioners), 
parts of iv. 16 f. (the Sermon at Nazareth), xix. 41-44 (the 
lament of Jesus over the city), a great part of xxiv. 13-32 (the 
journey to Emmaus), and probably the whole of xxiv. 44-end 
may be set to the account of Luke. But he certainly had other 
literary material at his command besides Mark and Q. 

The following are tlio chief passages peculiar to the third Gospel : 

i., ii. Narnil-w'B of the birth and infancy of John and Jesus, 

iii. 10-14, QneHlioiw to the, 'liuptwt. 

iv, r.|-;}<). Sermon at NawireUi. 

v, l-l I. (Jull of I'eter. 

vi, ',{.-{ -.iO. Woen on (Jie rich and tJie liuj)py, 

vii. 11-17. 'I'he Hon of the, widow of Niiin. 

;i<) , r )<>, Ji'miH anoinled by a woman al/ l/lnt hoiwn of a JMmrinee,. 

viii, i-.j. Women who followed Jemm. 


ix. S 1 ^^. Rejection by a Samaritan village. 

61-62. " Suffer me to say farewell." 
x. 17-20. The return of the seventy. 
25-37. The Good Samaritan. 
38-42. Martha and Mary, 
xi. 5-8. The importunate friend. 
27-28. Blessing on the mother of Jesus, 
xii. 13-21. The parable of the Rich Fool. 
35-38. " Let your loins be girded." 
47-48. Few stripes and many stripes. 
49-50. " I came to cast fire on the earth." 
54-57. The face of the heaven and the signs of the times, 
xiii. 1-5. Galileans murdered by Pilate ; the fall of a tower in Siloam. 

6-9. Parable of the Fig Tree. 
10-17. Woman healed on the Sabbath day. 
31-33. " Go hence, for Herod seeks to slay thee." 
xiv. 1-6. Dropsical man healed on the Sabbath. 
7-11. On taking the lowest seat. 
12-14. Invite the poor. 

28-33. Parables : on building a tower ; on going to war. 
xv. 8-10. Parable of the lost coin. 
11-30. Parable of the two sons, 
xvi. 1-12. Parable of the unjust steward, and following sayings. 

19-31. Dives and Lazarus, 
xvii. 7-10. A lord and his servant. 

11-19. Ten lepers healed. 

20-22,28-31. Sayings on the sudden coming of the Son of Man. 
xviii. 1-8. Parable of the unrighteous judge. 

9-14. The Pharisee and the Publican, 
xix. i-io. Zacchaeus. 

41-44. Jesus weeps over the city, 
xxii. 1-28 (parts). Sayings at the Last Supper, 
xxiii. 5-12. Jesus before Herod. 
26-32. The weeping women. 
39-43. The penitent thief, 
xxiv. 13-35. The appearance on the way to Emmaus. 

36-43. Jesus appears to the disciples at Jerusalem and eats before 

44-53. The parting at Bethany. 

It is perhaps improbable that Luke derived the whole of this 
heterogeneous body of material from a single source. The birth 
narratives certainly stand apart with distinct characteristics of their 


own. For the rest we may note certain salient features common to 
several of the sections. 

There is a group of narratives more or less parallel to narratives 
in Mark. In some cases, as we have already noted, these have been 
allowed to replace Marcan parallels. In other cases (e.g. healings 
on the Sabbath, xiii., xiv., cf. vi. 6 f . ; Jesus the guest of a publican, 
xix., cf. v. 29 f . ; the healing of lepers, xvii., cf . v. 12 f .) the Marcan 
counterparts are not disturbed. The welcome accorded by Jesus 
to the penitent outcast in contrast with the neglect or contempt of 
the more respectable professors of religion is a theme which recurs. 
That Jesus came to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance 
is already told us in Mark. But Mark gives us no concrete presenta- 
tion of the penitent publicans and sinners : the publican Levi 
answers the call to follow Jesus, but the Marcan narrative does not 
enter into the circumstances or the sentiments of the converted man. 
Contrast with this the Lucan story of Zacchaeus (c. xix.). Again, 
the woman who anoints Jesus appears both in Mark and in the 
special Lucan material. But in Luke she is a prostitute, and her 
devotion is presented as a foil to the neglect of the Pharisee who is 
Jesus' host. The pericope de adultera which finds a place in the MS. 
tradition of St. John's Gospel (and, in the Ferrar group of MSS., in 
Luke c. xx.) is strikingly similar in tone and colouring, and may 
well have come from the same cycle of tradition. 

Some of the Lucan narratives give us a little story complete in 
itself, in which the differing characters and conflicting motives of the 
actors contribute to the whole : the beautiful story of Martha, Mary 
and Jesus, and the dialogue between the penitent robber, his fellow- 
malefactor, and Jesus on the cross are examples. The healing of 
the ten lepers (c. xvii.) is particularly instructive in this respect. The 
story is fairly clearly a variant and an expansion of the story of the 
healing of the leper which appears in Mk. i. 40 (Lk. v. 12 f.). The 
main motifs recur. The appeal of the leper, the pity of Jesus, the 
command to shew himself to the priest, are all retained in the later 
variant. But a miracle which shews the mercy and the power of 
Jesus, and perhaps his respect for the Mosaic Law, has now been 
developed into a little story which leads up to a definite moral. 


The journey to the priests makes the opportunity for the healing 
to take effect, and the story culminates in the return to Jesus of 
the outcast Samaritan, whose gratitude is contrasted with the 
ingratitude of his Jewish fellows. 

Corresponding to the new type of narrative is a new type of 
' parable ' which is found in these Lucan sections, and here only. 
The parables of the Good Samaritan, the Rich Fool, Dives and 
Lazarus, the Pharisee and the Publican, are none of them true 
parables, inasmuch as they do not teach by analogy. They are 
stories which, by giving examples of types, of character, convey 
directly their own moral. The parable of the two sons almost falls 
into the same category, for the relation between the prodigal and 
his father is more than analogy to the relation of the penitent to the 
Father in heaven. 

Three other parables peculiar to Luke the Unjust Steward 
(c. xvi.), the Unjust Judge (c. xviii.), and the Importunate Friend 
(c. xi.) may be regarded as a group to themselves, since they are 
marked by certain striking similarities both in form (see notes and 
special introductions) and in content. Like most of the synoptic 
parables, and unlike the group of Lucan parables last considered, 
these parables all teach by analogy ; but they are unique among 
the parables in that the point which in each of them affords 
analogy to a spiritual truth, portrays conduct which in itself is 
reprehensible and is recognised as such. 

For the most part Luke may be supposed to have incorporated 
his material without considerable change. But it was his aim to 
write a connected narrative (Ka6e^ ypdtyai), and accordingly we 
find the discourses and parables set in a quasi-historical setting which 
in general is probably to be ascribed to the evangelist himself (x. I, 
xi. 16, 37, xii. I, xv. 1-2).. Sometimes (e.g. c. xiv.) the setting is 
highly artificial and unconvincing. We may also observe that a 
scene which at first sight appears to be a harmonious and coherent 
whole, is found not infrequently on closer inspection to be a com- 
bination of material which is not truly coherent. A peculiarly 
striking example is the parable of the debtors which is worked into 
the Lucan account of the anointing of Jesus by a woman (see intro- 


duction and notes to c. vii.). Similar incoherences may be observed 
in the account of the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth, and in the 
parable of the Good Samaritan with its prefatory dialogue. How 
far the evangelist is to be held responsible for this superficiality of 
treatment, or how far he is merely reproducing his source, it is 
perhaps impossible to determine. 

As to the provenance of Luke's special material there is much 
to be said for the conjecture that it was largely derived from 
Palestinian sources. The sympathy shewn for Samaritans would 
be natural in some Palestinian Church which had been in touch 
with the Samaritan Mission and the liberal movement inaugurated 
by Stephen and his fellows. Again, the high value set upon poverty 
and the hostility to wealth would perhaps be not less congenial in 
Greek-speaking churches of Palestine than among the ' poor saints ' 
of Jerusalem who looked to James for leadership. The conjecture 
that much of the material took shape in the Church of Caesarea is 
at least attractive. 1 A Greek-speaking city, the civil capital of 
Palestine, in tradition the scene of Peter's first Gentile convert, and 
the home of Philip the evangelist of Samaria, Caesarea would 
provide the kind of background which seems to suit the internal 
character of much of the material peculiar to Luke. There is good 
reason to suppose that a great part was first written down in the 
Greek language, for the influence of the LXX is strong, and the style 
has the freshness of original Greek composition. Moreover, a Church 
such as that of Caesarea might be expected to combine an instinctive 
understanding of Jewish national aspiration with a universalistic 
interpretation of the Gospel, both of which are in a high degree 
characteristic of many Lucan narratives. 

1 Cf. Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 219. 



THE greater part of the Gospel is, as we have seen, derived from 
earlier sources, and on the whole the writer treats his sources in a 
conservative spirit. His main object is to. give a historical survey 
of the events in which he and his fellow-believers have a close 
interest. There is no sufficient reason to suppose that the work was 
directly * tendencious,' or that the writer wished to commend a 
particular theological attitude. 1 The book reflects the primitive 
Christian ideas of the materials which it has embodied. At the 
same time it is possible to discern in the book certain interests and 
tendencies of the evangelist's own age. 


The ancient Church saw in St. Luke's Gospel the Gospel of 
Paul, and some modern critics, e.g. Renan, have regarded the Gospel 
as fundamentally Pauline. In so far as Paul was the great apologist 
of the Gentile Mission, Luke shares his position. The rejection of the 
Christ by the Jews and the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles 
are dominant themes in Luke and Acts. But Luke's interests and 
point of view were widely different from Paul's. The Pauline con- 
troversies about the Law and the peculiar Pauline theology in which 
they issued are not determining factors in St. Luke's presentation 
of the Gospel story. In Luke we are appreciably further from the 
Pauline spirit than in Mark. Most striking is the entire absence of 

1 Cf. an article by E. F. Scott in Gospels must be viewed almost ex- 
H.Th.R., April IQ26, pp. 143 f., on clusively as theological documents." 
'The New Criticism of the Gospels,' " Their historical interest is not to be 
He questions " the principle that the placed third or fourth, but first." 



a Pauline interpretation of the Cross. The Marcan saying concerning 
the death of the Son of Man as " a ransom for many " (Mk. x. 45), 1 
and the declaration at the Last Supper that the cup is " the blood of 
the Covenant poured out for many," are absent. There is indeed 
no theologia crucis beyond the affirmation that the Christ must 
suffer, since so the prophetic scriptures had foretold. 


The kingdom of God holds its place in this Gospel as the leading 
category, and it retains its primary meaning of ' the reign of God ' 
v which is to close and supersede the present world order. The 
eschatological connotation of the term as used in Mark and Q is 
no less unmistakable in Luke. (See e.g. xi. 2, xiii. 28, 29, xvii. 26, 
xxii. 16, 18, 30. Also xxiii. 51.) At the same time the thought of 
the imminence of the kingdom is less prominent than in Mark. The 
opening summary of Christ's preaching in Mark (" The time is ful- 
filled, and the kingdom of God is at hand ; repent and believe in 
the Gospel," Mk. i. 15) is replaced by the sermon in the synagogue 
at Nazareth on the text from Isaiah Ixi : " The spirit of the Lord 
is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to 
the poor. ..." This note pervades the Gospel, and the prominence 
of the thought that the preaching of the kingdom (evayyeKi^eaOai- 
rr}v {3aa-t,\eiav rov 6eov, iv. 43, viii. I, cf . ix. 6, xx. l) brings relief to 
the poor and afflicted and absolution to the penitent to some extent 
( weakens the eschatological association and fosters the thought that 
the good news of the kingdom is a present possession for those who 
receive it. The more striking Marcan prophecies of the imminence 
of the kingdom are softened (cf . ix. 27, xxii. 69), while other passages 
in the Gospel betray an attitude of some suspicion towards those, 
who look for an immediate fulfilment of the hope. Thus in xix. n 
the statement is prefixed to the parable of the Pounds that Jesus 
spoke the parable " because they thought that the kingdom of God 
was immediately to appear." In xxi. 8 the disciples are bidden to 
suspect, not only (as in Mark) those who shall say in Christ's name 

1 In xxi. 28 the word diroXvrpuo-is is used of the final appearance of the 
Son of Man. Cf. note ad loc. See also Lk. i. 68, ii. 38. 


" I am he," but even those who shall proclaim " The time is at hand." 
The later verses of the eschatological discourse in Luke also seem to 
suggest that an interval perhaps a considerable interval is to 
elapse before the end. Again, it is to be noted that in the parting 
words of Christ to his disciples (xxiv. fin.) the emphasis falls upon 
the approaching gift of the Holy Spirit, not upon the kingdom. 

Yet, although there is this perceptible tendency to weaken the 
idea of the imminence of the end, the evangelist shares the perspec- 
tive of all primitive Christendom, and pictures the final conclusion 
of the world-order with the sudden return of the Son of Man (xvii. 
22 f . and xxi. 35-36). 


The Gospel is written by a believer for believers, and therefore 
assumes the divine character and divine mission of the Person 
whose life and work it describes. But the book is not controlled 
by any definite doctrinal interest, and it would be a mistake to 
think of the writer as though he represented some particular type 
of Christological theory. In the main he follows his sources. 

The fundamental affirmation is that Jesus is the Christ foretold 
by prophecy. The idea, though not the word, is central in the 
angelic annunciation to Mary and in the opening stanzas of 
Zacharias' hymn. So, too, to Symeon it was revealed that he should 
not die until he had seen the Lord's Christ. The angel at the 
nativity speaks of Jesus as " Christ the Lord." The recognition of 
Jesus by the demons, and the confession of Peter " Thou art the 
Christ " are taken over from Mark. He is crucified as a Messianic 
claimant (xxiii. 2), and his crucifixion is afterwards shewn to fulfil 
Messianic prophecy (xxiv. 26, 46). The resurrection confirms the 
faith of his disciples in his Messiahship which the crucifixion had 
appeared to destroy (xxiv. 21). 

Old Testament precedent made it natural to regard the Messianic 
ruler as standing to God in the relationship of son. In the synoptic 
Gospels the two terms Christ and Son of God are found sometimes 
in close proximity (Mk. xiv. 61, Mt. xvi. 16), and apparently they 
are practically synonymous (cf. Lk. iv. 41). The title ' Son of God ' 


is, however, in itself wider in its scope and more general in its mean- 
ing ; hence it is not unnatural to find that the term Christ tended 
to become a personal appellative, except when it was used with a 
direct reference to the Jewish hope, while Son of God became the 
favourite term to describe the status and nature of Jesus. ' Son of 
God ' is the most prominent title in Mark. It is perhaps significant 
that in the Lucan version of the trial before the Sanhedrin the two 
titles are separated, and that it is to the question " Art thou the 
Son of God ? " that Jesus replies, " Ye say that I am." In Mark 
Jesus is declared Son of God by a divine voice at his baptism by 
John, and the divine declaration is repeated at the Transfiguration 
following upon Peter's confession. Both these passages are taken 
over into Luke, but Luke, like Matthew, presses back the divine 
sonship to the beginnings of the earthly life of Jesus. His birth is 
ascribed to the direct operation of the Spirit, and for that reason 
Mary's son is to be called ' Son of the Most High.' Further than 
this Luke does not go. The iciea of the pre-existence of the Son is_ 
nowhere suggested ; The thought moves on other lines. The idea 
of the incarnation of a divine pre-existent being does not, as the 
history of exegesis shews, accommodate itself easily to the narrative 
of the Annunciation to Mary. Yet there is no reason to suppose that 
Luke was conscious of differing from Paul or from other Christian 
teachers. Ideas were still fluid, and the problems of doctrinal con- 
struction were not realised. Twice Jesus is represented as applying 
to himself the title ' the Son ' : in the parable of the wicked 
husbandmen (Marcan) it is plain that Jesus is the son and heir of 
the Lord of the vineyard ; in a saying from Q (x. 22) the Johannine 
doctrine of the mutual knowledge of Father and Son comes to 
clear expression. 

The title ' the Son of Man ' Luke reproduces freely from both 
his chief sources. The term is used, according to the texts, exclu- 
sively by Jesus about himself, 1 and predominantly, though not 
exclusively, in connexion with the Passion, the Resurrection, or the 

1 But see ix. 26 (Mk.) and xii. 8 (Q) and ' denies ' at the day of judgement 
where the identification of the speaker is not inevitable, 
with the Son of Man who ' confesses ' 


Parousia. The term is almost confined to the passages derived 
from Mark or Q. Of the five occurrences in verses peculiar to Luke 
(xvii. 22, xviii. 8, xix. 10, xxi. 36, xxiv. 7) the first and the last two 
may be disregarded since they are closely connected with sayings 
from Mark or Q ; there remain xviii. 8 an appended saying at the 
end of a parable and xix. 10 : " the Son of Man is come to seek 
and to save that which is lost " (the conclusion of the narrative of 

A usage appears in St. Luke's Gospel whereby Jesus in narrative 
is referred to as 6 Kvpio<j. The primitive confession of Jesus as Lord 
(Ro. x. 9) has reacted upon the style of narratives which describe 
his earthly life. The usage is peculiar to Luke of the synoptic 
evangelists, and in the Lucan Gospel it is confined to narratives or 
to editorial introductions peculiar to that Gospel (vii. 13, 19 ; x. I, 
39, 41 ; xii. 42 ; xiii. 15 ; xvii. 5, 6 ; xviii. 6 ; xix. 8 ; xxii. 61 (bis)). 
As the term is never introduced by the evangelist into Marcan 
narratives (except xxii. 61, where the narrative is extensively re- 
shaped), it may be inferred that Luke found the usage in his special 
source or sources. The occurrence of the usage in introductions to 
Q material (e.g. x. I, xii. 42) and its general absence in Marcan 
contexts have been held to support the conjecture that Q had been 
already combined with some of the peculiar Lucan matter before 
its incorporation in Luke. But it may well be that the usage would 
come naturally to the evangelist himself when he was composing a 
fresh setting for a paragraph. There is strong reason to assign 
x. i (the appointment of ' the seventy ') to his own hand. The usage 
occurs sporadically in St. John possibly only in editorial additions. 

Lastly, we record the single use of a-wrrjp of Jesus in the angelic 
message to the shepherds (ii. u). The word is never found elsewhere 
in the synoptic Gospels except Lk. i. 47 (the Magnificat), and there 
it is used, as often in the O.T., of God. See note on ii. n. 


THE literary versatility of the evangelist is shewn at the outset. 
The Preface is a carefully balanced sentence written in irreproachable 
literary Greek. After the Preface there is an abrupt change, and 
the style of the infancy narratives is as close to the style of the 
Greek Old Testament as the Greek of Lucian is to classical Attic 
prose. The transition proves the author to be a conscious artist. 
He could, if he wished, have written throughout as a professional 
man of letters ; if he does not maintain his polished and polite style, 
it is because he judges it unsuitable to transpose the traditional 
material into another idiom. 

If the language of the Gospel as a whole be compared with the 
Greek of contemporary writers of the literary language, e.g. Josephus, 
one broad difference between the two stands out : unlike the Greek 
of Josephus, the Greek of the Gospel is strongly marked by the 
influence of Semitic idiom. In view of the Jewish origin of the 
Christian religion, this pervasive Semitic atmosphere causes no 
surprise. But the true interpretation of this undoubted Semitism 
in its relation to the spoken Greek of the day is a difficult and 
delicate subject of enquiry. 

The discoveries of the papyri texts in Egypt have carried the 
study of the language of the N.T. into a new stage. It had been 
usual to suppose that the obvious difference between the style of 
the N.T. writers on the one hand and pagan writers on the other 
was to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the N.T. writers, 
being in the main Jews, wrote and spoke a Semitic-Greek dialect. 
It has, however, been shewn by students of the papyri particularly 

A. Deissmann and Moulton that the great majority of the so-called 



Semitisms in the N.T. can be paralleled from documents written in 
the vernacular Greek of the time. A residuum of cases remain 
where a construction or idiom, to which no true parallel from Greek 
sources has been found, finds a ready explanation by reference to 
Hebrew or to Aramaic. 1 Broadly speaking, however, the generalisa- 
tions have won acceptance (i) that the Greek of the N.T. is on the 
whole the common Greek of the Empire ; and (2) that evidence has 
failed to confirm the hypothesis that there was a special Semitic 
dialect of the KO^TJ. Moreover, against the hypothesis that there 
existed such a dialect appeal may be made to the writings of Greek- 
speaking Jews Philo, Josephus, St. Paul where we might expect 
to find traces of the influence of such a dialect if it existed. They 
shew no trace of it. The epistles of St. Paul apart from O.T. 
quotations are vigorous examples of the ordinary vernacular 
language attested by the papyri. 

The N.T. documents, however, differ considerably from one 
another in their literary character, and, as applied to the Gospels 
in general and to St. Luke's Gospel in particular, the generalisations 
call for qualification in two respects. 

(i) Jesus himself and the earliest disciples without doubt spoke 
Aramaic, and the earliest traditions which lie behind the Gospels 
may be assumed to have taken shape at the first in Aramaic. It is 
probable that the Christians who first translated the tradition from 
Aramaic into Greek thought in Aramaic more readily than in Greek. 
This probability is confirmed by the actual character of the Greek 
of Mark and Q. It is easy, says Wellhausen, to transpose them back 
into their fflijjgbic original. Yet it would be a mistake to speak 
of Mark 46 being written in a Semitic Greek dialect. Lagrange 2 
rightly distinguishes between a dialect of a language and the style 
of a language as spoken by a foreigner : "No doubt many Jews 
spoke detestable Greek. But this no more makes a dialect than 
the French which some Germans speak makes a Franco-German 

1 E.g. the use of the genitive of a 12), both of which are at once ex- 
noun as an equivalent to an adjective plicable from Hebrew. 
6 oi/coj'd/zos rrjs aSi/accs, and ei c. Fat. 2 Saint Luc, Introd. p. xcvi. I 
Indie, as a strong negative (Mk. viii. follow Lagrange closely in this chapter. 


THE literary versatility of the evangelist is shewn at the outset. 
The Preface is a carefully balanced sentence written in irreproachable 
literary Greek. After the Preface there is an abrupt change, and 
the style of the infancy narratives is as close to the style of the 
Greek Old Testament as the Greek of Lucian is to classical Attic 
prose. The transition proves the author to be a conscious artist. 
He could, if he wished, have written throughout as a professional 
man of letters ; if he does not maintain his polished and polite style, 
it is because he judges it unsuitable to transpose the traditional 
material into another idiom. 

If the language of the Gospel as a whole be compared with the 
Greek of contemporary writers of the literary language, e.g. Josephus, 
one broad difference between the two stands out : unlike the Greek 
of Josephus, the Greek of the Gospel is strongly marked by the 
influence of Semitic idiom. In view of the Jewish origin of the 
Christian religion, this pervasive Semitic atmosphere causes no 
surprise. But the true interpretation of this undoubted Semitism 
in its relation to the spoken Greek of the day is a difficult and 
delicate subject of enquiry. 

The discoveries of the papyri texts in Egypt have carried the 
study of the language of the N.T. into a new stage. It had been 
usual to suppose that the obvious difference between the style of 
the N.T. writers on the one hand and pagan writers on the other 
was to be accounted for by the hypothesis that the N.T. writers, 
being in the main Jews, wrote and spoke a Semitic-Greek dialect. 
It has, however, been shewn by students of the papyri particularly 

A. Deissmann and Moulton rthat the great majority of the so-called 



Semitisms in the N.T. can be paralleled from documents written in 
the vernacular Greek of the time. A residuum of cases remain 
where a construction or idiom, to which no true parallel from Greek 
sources has been found, finds a ready explanation by reference to 
Hebrew or to Aramaic. 1 Broadly speaking, however, the generalisa- 
tions have won acceptance (i) that the Greek of the N.T. is on the 
whole the common Greek of the Empire ; and (2) that evidence has 
failed to confirm the hypothesis that there was a special Semitic 
dialect of the Kowrj. Moreover, against the hypothesis that there 
existed such a dialect appeal may be made to the writings of Greek- 
speaking Jews Philo, Josephus, St. Paul where we might expect 
to find traces of the influence of such a dialect if it existed. They 
shew no trace of it. The epistles of St. Paul apart from O.T. 
quotations are vigorous examples of the ordinary vernacular 
language attested by the papyri. 

The N.T. documents, however, differ considerably from one 
another in their literary character, and, as applied to the Gospels 
in general and to St. Luke's Gospel in particular, the generalisations 
call for qualification in two respects. 

(i) Jesus himself and the earliest disciples without doubt spoke 
Aramaic, and the earliest traditions which lie behind the Gospels 
may be assumed to have taken shape at the first in Aramaic. It is 
probable that the Christians who first translated the tradition from 
Aramaic into Greek thought in Aramaic more readily than in Greek. 
This probability is confirmed by the actual character of the Greek 
of Mark and Q> It is easy, says Wellhausen, to transpose them back 
into their ^j^tic original. Yet it would be a mistake to speak 
of Mark & being written in a Semitic Greek dialect. Lagrange z 
rightly distinguishes between a dialect of a language and the style 
of a language as spoken by a foreigner : " No doubt many Jews 
spoke detestable Greek. But this no more makes a dialect than 
the French which some Germans speak makes a Franco-German 

1 E.g. the use of the genitive of a 12), both of which are at once ex- 
noun as an equivalent to an adjective plicable from Hebrew. 
6 oLKov6fj.o<s rrj<s aSuaas, and el c. Fut. a Saint Luc, Introd. p. xcvi. I 
Indie, as a strong negative (Mk. viii. follow Lagrange closely in this chapter. 


dialect." The foreigner may on occasion directly import a foreign 
idiom which is unintelligible without reference to his native language. 
More often he will avail himself of possible but unidiomatic phrases 
from his adopted language which correspond to the idiom of his 
native language. Wellhausen justly argues that scattered parallels 
from papyri to an apparent Semitism in the Gospels do not disprove 
Semitic influence. A writing might never trespass against possible 
usage and yet bear an unmistakably foreign appearance. " The 
man who had learned to think as a Hebrew was sure to fashion his 
speech in many ways differently from the born Greek, but only in 
the rarest cases has the difference of birth led to direct offence 
against the laws of grammar." 1 

(2) The second qualification arises from the literary influence 
of the LXX. The translation Greek of the LXX reflects the Hebrew 
idiom of the original, and the direct influence of the language of the 
Sacred Book has imparted a Hebrew colouring to writers who found 
in it a natural model for religious narrative. 

A precise delimitation of these two strains of Semitic influence 
is often difficult. The two languages Hebrew and Aramaic 
naturally have much in common. In Mark and Q unmistakable 
Hebraisms are rare, 2 and the extent of literary reminiscence appears 
to be small. On the other hand, in these writings the Aramaic of 
the popular tradition may be felt throughout. Both elements are 
present in Luke, and in Luke the Hebraic colouring is more pro- 
nounced than in any other book of the New Testament. Yet there 
is no reason to suspect that Luke knew Hebrew. He never goes 
behind the LXX to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The 
Hebraic influence is mediated by the LXX. It is of high significance 
that the most literary and most Greek of the writers of the New 
Testament 3 is the writer to shew most strongly the influence of 
the Hebraistic LXX. A genuine and native Hellene is drawing 
into himself the spirit and style of the Greek-Hebrew Bible, appro- 

1 Radermacher, N.T. Grammatik, ci So^o-erai rrj yei/er? ravrr) crry- 
p. 20. //.eioi/. 

2 Yet they are found. See Mk. i. 9 3 The writer to the Hebrews should 
i<al eyevfro . . . y\6ev; viii. 12 be excepted. 


priating the Jewish Scriptures as the true possession of the Gentile 

The following Lucan idioms may be regarded as Hebraisms : 

(1) teal eyeveTo with a following verb. On the three constructions 
with which the phrase is used in Luke see note infra on i. 8 and 
Plummer, p. 45. The phrase is very frequent in the LXX to repre- 
sent i TVI. It is not an Aramaic idiom. 

(2) The frequent use of KOI ISov. IBov itself is good classical 
Greek, but the recurrence of KOL l&ov may be ascribed to the LXX 
rendering of the recurrent Hebrew mm. IBov occurs six times only 
in Mark and never in narrative. KOI IBov is not found in Mark, but 
is frequent in Matthew as well as in Luke. 

(3) ev TU> c. Infin. after Kal fyevero corresponds to the LXX 
rendering of a with Infin. The construction ev rw c. Infin. occurs 
sporadically in good Greek writers (cf. Moulton, Prol. p. 215) 
but not apparently to denote time (ib. p. 249). The idiom is not 
Aramaic, and may with some confidence be regarded as Hebraism. 
ev ro) c. Infin. of time is found twice in Mark (iv. 4, vi. 48, in the 
former case following KOL eyevero) and three times in Matthew 
(xiii. 4, 25, xxvii. 12). In Luke it occurs over thirty times. Luke 
distinguishes carefully between the Present and Aorist Infin., the 
latter being used only of completed action. 

(4) The use of evcoTriov corresponding to a frequent LXX render- 
ing of 'oa^. The word is found as a preposition occasionally in the 
papyri. The significance lies in the frequency of the usage in Luke. 
Cf. i. 15 n. Not in Mark or Matthew. 

(5) Phrases formed from the word irpocrto'rrov, though not im- 
possible in Greek, may probably be described as Hebraising. i. 76 
(cf. vii. 27) ; ix. 52 (Trpb irpocratTrov) ; ii. 31 (rcara irpoawrrov) ; 
xxi. 35 (eVl Trpoa-coTTov). Cf. also ix. 51, 53. 

(6) xxii. 15 cTTiOvfiia eVe0 140,770-0. recalls an habitual LXX method 
of rendering the Hebrew Absol. Infin. prefixed to a Finite verb. 

(7) TiQkvai) riOea-Qai eV rfj /capSia (a phrase peculiar in the N.T. 
to the Lucan writings i. 66, xxi. 14, Acts v. 4 ; cf . also Lk. ix. 44 
Oea-OaL et? ra WTO) corresponds closely to a LXX rendering of the 
Hebrew. Cf. i Regn. xxi. 12, xxix. 10 ; 2 Eegn. xiii. 33. 

Other Hebraistic phrases are Sogd^ew TOV 6eov (8 times), 
eXeo? yuera (i. 72, x. 37), fjieyakvveiv e'Xeo? //.era (i. 58), iroielv 


Kpdro<; (i. 51). Like the LXX Luke transliterates the Hebrew 
words criKepa (i. 15), /3aro? (xvi. 6), /copo? (xvi. 7). 

Further Semitic idioms which are probably due to Aramaic 
influence are the following : 

(1) The periphrastic construction of the imperfect of the verb 
' to be ' with a participle. The construction is good Greek, but in 
true Greek usage it is found only when, there is a definite intention to 
emphasise continuity of action. Aramaic, on the other hand, uses 
the construction very freely, often as a mere equivalent for the 
Imperfect. The Aramaic usage is very pronounced in Mark (16 
times). The construction is found about 30 times in Luke and 24 
times in Acts. Several of the cases in Luke may be classified as 
normal Greek usage, e.g. iv. 38, 44 ; vi. 12. On the other hand 
Semitism may be recognised in ix. 53, xi. 14, xiii. 10, II, xiv. I, and 
the frequency of the usage in doubtful cases may be set down to 
the influence of Aramaic. 

(2) The use of dp^ecrdai in a weak sense without emphasis upon 
the idea of ' beginning ' is found occasionally in good Greek. In 
Aramaic n^ is frequently used virtually as a mere auxiliary. A 
corresponding use of ap^ea-Octi is common in Mark (about 25 times). 
Luke appears to avoid a merely conventional use of the word such 
as is found in Mark, but a weak use of the word occurs too frequently 
(about 24 times) not to suggest Semitism. (Cf . iii. 8 n.) The idiom 
is not Hebraic. 

(3) The frequent use of tnroKpiOels elirev, where aTroKpivo^au 
means merely ' to begin to speak,' is not Greek, but is readily 
explained from Semitic usage. Cf. P.B. s.v. unroK^lvo^ai. 

(4) The Semitic custom of prefixing to a principal verb a parti- 
ciple expressive of movement or attitude may probably be traced 
in XV. 25 ep^ofjuevos tfyryicrev, xv. 18 dvaaTas iropeva'ofjLai,, xv. 2O 
avaara^ rjKOzv, perhaps also in xiv. 28, 31, xvi. 6 /camera?. In the 
latter cases, however, the participle is too natural to compel us to 
look for non-Greek influence. 

(5) The free use of pronouns attached to nouns and verbs recalls 
Semitic idiom. A clear case of Aramaism is the use of a relative 
at the beginning of a clause resumed by a pronoun at the end : 

ov . . . avrov iii. 17 (Q)- 

(6) The Semitic use of a substantive following the construct case 
as the equivalent of a qualifying adjective is the certain explanation 
of 6 OLKOVOJUOS T??? a^iKia<i xvi. 8, 6 KpiTrjs rijf dbiKLas xviii. 6. A 


special case of the same idiom is the Semitic use of a noun following 
upon ' son of ' to describe the quality of a person or thing : ' a 
son of peace ' for ' a peaceful man,' etc. Cf. v. 34 (Mk.), x. 6, 
xvi. 8. No Greek parallel to this usage is forthcoming. 

(7) The use of ISov almost with the meaning ' since ' (French 
il y a), xiii. 7, 16. Cf. Mk. viii. 2. 

(8) The use of the verb irpoa-TiOrj^t, in place of an adverb ' again.' 
xix. IT, xx. ii, 12, cf . Acts xii. 3, corresponds to Semitic usage. It is 
not normal Greek, but it occurs repeatedly in Josephus, being the 
one Semitic mannerism which has been detected in his style. 

Other words and phrases of a Semitic colouring are elprjvrj as 
a salutation (x. 5? 6), oftohoyeiv ev c. Dat. (xii. 8), Kapirov Troieiv 
(iii. 8). 1 

Alongside the Semitic colouring of Luke's style we have to 
recognise (i) many stylistic improvements of the rude Greek of Mark, 
and (2) the relatively frequent appearance of some idiomatic Greek 

In dealing with Mark, Luke has thoroughly recast the language. 
We have already noted that the Marcan ev0v$ entirely disappears 
from Marcan sections in Luke, and only one Marcan historic present 
is retained (viii. 49). In place of Mark's predilection for parataxis 
Luke tends to substitute a more periodic form of sentence, frequently 
replacing principal verbs by participles. The conjunction Se is very 
frequently substituted for /cat. Hawkins notes that whereas of 
the 88 sections and subsections of Mark no less than 80 begin with 
/cat, out of the total number of 145 sections in Luke 53 only begin 
with /cat, while 83 have Be as the second word. 2 

The following Lucan idioms testify to a relatively high standard 
of literary style : 

(i) The Optative occurs but rarely in the N.T. apart from the 
phrase ^ yevoiTo (frequent in Paul, once also in Lk. xx. 16). In the 
first century it was generally obsolescent. It is not found in Matthew 
or John, and occurs but once in Mark (xi. 14, a negative wish). In 
Luke, on the other hand, we find the Optative once used for a positive 
wish (i. 38), and the Optative (with or without av) fairly frequently 

1 Cf. note ad loc. Lagrange quotes KapiroTroios from Eur. Rhes. 964. 
2 Horae Synopiicae 2 , pp. 150 f. 


used in indirect question after a principal verb in the past tense. 
But it is to be noted that Luke never follows the Atticists in using 
the Optative in a final clause. 

(2) The attraction of the relative into the case of its antecedent 
is by no means confined to literary style in the later Greek. It is 
found not infrequently in papyri. Yet it is rare in Matthew (twice) 
and Mark (once). On the other hand it is frequent in Paul, Hebrews, 
John, as well as in Luke. A certain idiomatic quality probably 
attaches to the use when the antecedent is attracted into the relative 
clause, as in i. 20, iii. 19, xii. 40 (Q = Mt. xxiv. 44), xix. 37. 

(3) The use of the article before an indirect question, trans- 
forming the clause into a quasi-substantive, indicates a certain Greek 
elegance of style. Cf . i. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24 ; Acts iv. 
21, xxii. 30. Found also in Ro. viii. 26, I Thess. iv. I. 

(4) The good Greek usage of TOV c. Infin. to express purpose is 
found in Matthew, Hebrews, and possibly in Paul, but it is especially 
characteristic of Luke (i. 74, 77, 79, ii. 24, 27, viii. 5, xii. 42 (Q = 
Mt. xxiv. 45), xxi. 22, xxii. 31, xxiv. 45. It is not unknown in the 

(5) irpiv, which elsewhere in the N.T. is invariably constructed 
with the Infin., is found in Luke once with the Subj. (ii. 26) and once 
with the Optat. (Acts xxv. 16). In both these cases the construction 
is correctly used to follow a negative. " The papyrus writers are 
not so particular " (Moulton, Prol. p. 169 n. i). 

It is to be noted that these idiomatic turns of expression are not 
less frequent in the simple Hebraistic Greek of .the first two chapters 
than elsewhere. Whatever Luke's sources may have been, he has 
not failed to impress upon them the marks of his own workmanship. 

The total Lucan vocabulary is more extensive than that of any 
other N.T. writer. The total number of words used in Luke-Acts 
(excluding proper names) has been reckoned at 2697. 1 The total 
number in the Gospel alone is estimated at about 1800. 2 Of the 
total Lucan vocabulary some 750 words are peculiar to the Lucan 
writings in the N.T., and of these 261 are peculiar to the Gospel, 

1 J. Ritchie Smith quoted in Cad- Epistles (excluding the Pastorals) 

bury, Style and Literary Method of at 2170 words, of which 593 are 

Luke, pt. i. p. i. Cadbury estimates peculiar to Paul in the N.T. 
the vocabulary of the Pauline 2 Ib. p. 2. 


and 58 common to Luke and Acts. 1 It is further interesting to 
record that Hawkins gives 101 words found in Luke (with Acts) 
and Paul only, 2 and 16 words found only in Luke and Hebrews 
(besides 8 which are also in Acts). 

Professor Cad bury 3 has carried out a careful classification of 
Luke's vocabulary from a-e according to the method of analysis 
adopted in Wilhelm Schmid's Atticismus 4 for Dio Chrysostom, 
Lucian, Aristides, Aelian, and the younger Philostratus. A com- 
parison with Schmid's results for these writers appears to shew 
that " every element of a Hellenistic vocabulary is present in 
Luke, but the post-classical element is considerably larger than 
in any of the Atticists whom Schmid studies." Cadbury, however, 
argues that a certain deduction should be made for the considerable 
body of quasi-technical Jewish and Christian terms, and on the 
whole concludes that " the vocabulary of Luke, while it has its 
natural affinities with the Greek of the Bible, is not so far removed 
from the literary style of the Atticists as to be beyond comparison 
with them." 

An interesting test may be applied to Lucan usage from the 
lexical notes of Phrynichus. In a number of cases Luke's taste has 
led him to correct words and phrases in his sources which are found 
in Phrynichus's list of condemned vulgarisms. 

Thus eV^arw? e%ei is condemned by Phryn. ccclxviii. 5 It occurs 
Mk. v. 23. Luke substitutes aireBv^aKev (viii. 42). 

TTT&fjba in the sense of ' a corpse ' is condemned by Phrynichus 
cccli. Luke substitutes a-w/j,a for irrw^a xxiii. 52 (cf . Mk. xv. 45), 
and probably also at xvii. 37 (cf. Mt. xxiv. 28). 

pac^is ' a needle ' is condemned by Phrynichus Ixxii. For pa(f)Ls 
(Mk. x. 25) Luke substitutes p\6vrj (xviii. 25), the word which 
Phrynichus endorses. 

1 See the list in Hawkins, op. cit. 4 Der Atticismus in seinen Haupt- 
pp. 198 f. Of the 319 words in the vertretern von Dionysius von Halikar- 
Gospel peculiar in the N.T. to the nass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, 
Lucan writings, no less than 118 4 vols. and index, Stuttgart, 1887- 
are compound verbs. See the Index 1897. 

of Greek Words. 5 The references are to Rutherford's 

2 Ib. p. 156. 3 Op. cit, pp. 8 f. New Phrynichus, 


Kopdcnov, condemned by Phrynichus Ivi., occurs Mk. v. 41. Luke 
substitutes rj iral^. 

On the other hand Luke himself uses a considerable number of 
words which Phrynichus condemns or disapproves : al^akwn- 
adrjvai (xxi. 24), dXeKrwp (xxii. 34, 60, 6l), a.7roKpi0f]vai, fiao-iXicrcra 
(xi. 31), ryoyyv&iv (v. 30), ryprjjopeiv (xii. 37), Sy^ in a principal 
sentence (xvi. 2), ey/cdOeros (xx. 20), e^TTTvo) (xviii. 32), ev^apLcrreLv 
(xvii. 16), Ka0(t)<}, fcpoveiv rr)v Ovpav (xiii. 25), \v-^yia (viii. 16, 
xi. 33), pevovv at the beginning of a sentence (xi. 28), 
VVKTIOV (xi. 5) (ace. to Phryn. xxxvi. TTW^TIKOV, ov 

o? (ii. 24) and vocrala (xiii. 34) (Phryn. clxxxii. prescribes 
05, veoTTiov), oLKoBea-TroTr)^ (xii. 39)? op6po<$ of the dawn 
(xxiv. I, cf. Mk. xvi. 2) (Phryn. ccxlii. appeals to ancient usage, 
which used opOpos only of the period before daybreak), outfet'? 
(xxii. 35, xxiii. 14), Tra&ia-Kr) (xii. 45, xxii. 56) of a maidservant, 
TravSoftelov, vraz/Scrs/ev? (x. 34? 35) spelt with ^, Traz/rore, Troravro? 
(i. 29, vii. 39) for TTOO<?, ffivairi (xiii. 19, xvii. 6), a-Kbpir 
(xi. 23) (Phryn. cxciii. a-KopTri^eTai Ionic, a-KeSavvvrau Attic). 


THE text printed in this edition is that of Westcott and Hort. 

Fresh evidence and further investigation have tended in certain 
respects to modify Westcott's and Hort's theory of the history of 
the text in the early centuries. The geographical restriction of the 
use of the ' Neutral text ' has strengthened the hypothesis that this 
was in truth the local text of Alexandria. On the other hand the 
discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac and further investigation of the Old 
Latin have at once shewn the wide distribution of ' Western ' 
readings, and disclosed a greater variety of local texts than Hort 
realised. 1 Again, the discovery of codex has brought to light a 
combination of readings to some extent supported by certain cur- 
sives which cannot be satisfactorily classified either with ' Neutral ' 
or ' Western.' 

" The ultimate aim of textual criticism," writes Canon Streeter, 
"is to get back behind the diverse local texts to a single text, viz. 
to that which the authors originally wrote. But the high road to 
that conclusion is first to recover the local texts of the great Churches, 
and then to work back to a common original that will explain them 
all " (Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 39). The present work offers no 
fresh material for the laborious task of constructing that high road. 
There seems to be little doubt that when the high road is completed, 
the main foundation of the final text will still be the great Uncials 
BK, on which Westcott and Hort built their text half a century ago. 
" Of the five early local texts, that of Alexandria (Bx) is, as we 
should expect from the tradition of textual scholarship native to the 

Hort of course was well aware may have differed from the originals, 

that the ' Western text ' was not there must have been no little subse- 

homogeneous. " The Western text quent and progressive change " (The 

is not to be thought of as a single New Testament in the Original Greek, 

recension, complete from the first. editio minor, p. 550). 
However its parent copy or copies 



place, undoubtedly the best." " But," Canon Streeter continues, 
" no MS. and no line of textual tradition is infallible, and it will 
not infrequently appear that the true reading of a particular passage, 
lost at Alexandria, has been preserved in one or other of the rival 
texts" (ib. p. 32). The time has not come to decide how often 
Alexandria has erred. By general consent it would as yet be pre- 
mature to attempt to revise the W.H. text as a whole, and sporadic 
alterations of an authoritative text are to be deprecated. The only 
liberties that I have taken with the W.H. text are : (i) I have not 
invariably reproduced the marginal readings ; usually, however, I 
have given them in the apparatus with their principal supporters ; 
(2) I have on occasion changed the punctuation for reasons which 
are stated in the notes. 

Apart from textual evidence to elucidate W.H.'s brackets in the 
text, and their readings in the margin, the apparatus is restricted to 
variant readings which seem to be of intrinsic interest. In these cases 
I have tried to include a fairly complete statement of the evidence 
of those MSS. which the labours of textual critics have shewn to be 
representative of, or at least closely related to, some pre-Byzantine 
form of text. Most of the evidence has been taken direct from the 
8th edition of Tischendorf's New Testament, but I have supplemented 
Tischendorf by reference to Professor Burkitt's translation of the 
Sinaitic Syriac, 1 to Mr. Horner's translations of the Egyptian versions, 2 
to the Koridethi MS. (), 3 the Freer MS. (W), 4 I etc., 5 69 etc., 6 
565, 7 700. 8 

The notation in the apparatus follows C. K. Gregory, Die grie- 
chischen Handschriften des N.T. (Leipzig, 1908). 

1 Evangelion da Mepharreshe, ed. 
F. C. Burkitt (Cambridge, 1904). 

2 The Coptic Version of the N.T. in 
the Northern Dialect, otherwise catted 
Memphitic and Bohairic, vol. 2, St. 
Luke and St. John (Oxford, 1898) ; 
The Coptic Version of the N.T. in 
the Southern Dialect, otherwise catted 
Sahidic and Thebaic, vol. 2, St. Luke 
(Oxford, 1911). 

3 Ed. Beerman and Gregory (Leip- 
zig, 1913)- 

4 Ed. H. A. Sanders, New Testament 

MSS. in the Freer Collection, pt. i. 
(New York, 1912). 

5 Ed. Lake, Texts and Studies, 
vol. vii. 

6 A Collation of Four Important 
Manuscripts of the Gospels, W. F. 
Ferrar, ed. T. K. Abbott (Dublin, 

7 Collation by Belsheim, Das Evan- 
gelium des Marcus n. d. Codex Pur- 
pur eus Petropolitanus (Christiania, 
1885), Appendix. 

8 H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account and 
Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex 
Evangelium 604 ( = Gregory 700) 
(D. Nutt, 1890). 



B. S. EASTON, The Gospel according to St. Luke (Edinburgh, 1926 ; printed 


E. KLOSTERMANN, Das Lulcasevangelium (Handb. z. N.T. vol. ii. i), Tubingen, 
ist ed. 1919 ; 2nd ed. 1929. (The second edition did not come into 
the writer's hands until his commentary was almost complete.) 
Das Markusevangelium, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1926). 
Das MaUhiiusevangelium, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1927). 
M. J. LAGRANGE, fivangile selon Saint Luc (Paris, 1921). 
A. LOISY, Les fivangiles synoptiques (Paris, 1907). 
Ufivangile selon Luc (Paris, 1924). 

C. G. MONTEFIORE, The Synoptic Gospels, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Macmillan, 1927). 
A. PLUMMBR, Gospel according to St. Luke (ICC., T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 


LONSDALE RAGG, St. Luke- (Westminster Commentaries, Methuen, 1922). 
A. E. J. RAWLINSON, St. Mark (Westminster Commentaries, Methuen, 1925). 
H. L. STRAOK u. P. BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus 

Talmud und MidrascJi, vols. i., ii., iv. (Miinchen, 1922-1928). 
J. WEISS, Die drei alteren Evangelien (vol. i. of Die Schriften des Neuen 

Testaments, 3rd ed., Gottingen, 1917), revised by W. Bousset. 
J. WELLHAUSEN, Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin, 1904). 
Das Markusevangelium, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1911). 
Das Evangelium Matthaei, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1914). 
A. WRIGHT, The Gospel according to S. Luke in Greek, edited with parallels, etc. 

(Macmillan, 1900). 
TH. ZAHN, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt (Leipzig, 1913). 


F. BLASS, Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, 

2nd ed. (Macmillan, 1905). 
J. H. MOULTON, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. Prolegomena, 

3rd ed. (T. & T. Clark, 1908); vol. ii. ed. by W. F. HOWARD (1919-20). 



Kopdo-Lov, condemned by Phrynichus Ivi., occurs Mk. v. 41. Luke 
substitutes 97 iral^. 

On the other hand Luke himself uses a considerable number of 
words which Phrynichus condemns or disapproves : <u^/iaXom- 
ffOrjvai (xxi. 24), a\6KTO)p (xxii. 34, 60, 6l), a.7roKpi0?ji>at,, (3a<ri\L(rcra 
(xi. 31), yoyjv^ecv (v. 30), fyprjyopelv (xii. 37), 1^77 in a principal 
sentence (xvi. 2), eyKaOeros (xx. 20), e^TTTvu) (xviii. 32), ev^apto-relv 
(xvii. 16), /ca^o)9, /cpoveiv ryv Ovpav (xiii. 25), \v~xyia (viii. 16, 
xi. 33), fjievovv at the beginning of a sentence (xi. 28), 
VVKTLOV (xi. 5) (ace. to Phryn. xxxvi. Troi^riKov, ov 
j/ocrcro? (ii. 24) and vodala (xiii. 34) (Phryn. clxxxii. prescribes 
z/eoTTo?, veorriov), olKoBea'Tror^ (xii. 39)' op6po$ of the dawn 
(xxiv. i, cf. Mk. xvi. 2) (Phryn. ccxlii. appeals to ancient usage, 
which used opOpo? only of the period before daybreak), ovOefa 
(xxii. 35, xxiii. 14), TratSiW?? (xii. 45, xxii. 56) of a maidservant, 
TravSo^eLov, TravBo^evs (x. 34' 35) spelt with ^, TrdvTore, 7ror<x7ro9 
(i. 29, vii. 39) for 7roto9, aivairi (xiii. 19, xvii. 6), crKopTr 
(xi. 23) (Phryn. cxciii. crtcop'TrL^erai Ionic, o-KeBdvvvrai Attic). 


THE text printed in this edition is that of Westcott and Hort. 

Fresh evidence and further investigation have tended in certain 
respects to modify Westcott's and Hort's theory of the history of 
the text in the early centuries. The geographical restriction of the 
use of the ' Neutral text ' has strengthened the hypothesis that this 
was in truth the local text of Alexandria. On the other hand the 
discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac and further investigation of the Old 
Latin have at once shewn the wide distribution of ' Western ' 
readings, and disclosed a greater variety of local texts than Hort 
realised. 1 Again, the discovery of codex has brought to light a 
combination of readings to some extent supported by certain cur- 
sives which cannot be satisfactorily classified either with ' Neutral ' 
or ' Western.' 

" The ultimate aim of textual criticism," writes Canon Streeter, 
"is to get back behind the diverse local texts to a single text, viz. 
to that which the authors originally wrote. But the high road to 
that conclusion is first to recover the local texts of the great Churches, 
and then to work back to a common original that will explain them 
all " (Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 39). The present work offers no 
fresh material for the laborious task of constructing that high road. 
There seems to be little doubt that when the high road is completed, 
the main foundation of the final text will still be the great Uncials 
Btf, on which Westcott and Hort built their text half a century ago. 
" Of the five early local texts, that of Alexandria (Bs) is, as we 
should expect from the tradition of textual scholarship native to the 

Hort of course was well aware may have differed from the originals, 

that the ' Western text ' was not there must have been no little subse- 

homogeneous. " The Western text quent and progressive change " (The 

is not to be thought of as a single New Testament in the Original Greek, 

recension, complete from the first. editio minor, p. 550). 
However its parent copy or copies 



place, undoubtedly the best." " But," Canon Streeter continues, 
" no MS. and no line of textual tradition is infallible, and it will 
not infrequently appear that the true reading of a particular passage, 
lost at Alexandria, has been preserved in one or other of the rival 
texts" (^6. p. 32). The time has not come to decide how often 
Alexandria has erred. By general consent it would as yet be pre- 
mature to attempt to revise the W.H. text as a whole, and sporadic 
alterations of an authoritative text are to be deprecated. The only 
liberties that I have taken with the W.H. text are : (i) I have not 
invariably reproduced the marginal readings ; usually, however, I 
have given them in the apparatus with their principal supporters ; 
(2) I have on occasion changed the punctuation for reasons which 
are stated in the notes. 

Apart from textual evidence to elucidate W.H.'s brackets in the 
text, and their readings in the margin, the apparatus is restricted to 
variant readings which seem to be of intrinsic interest. In these cases 
I have tried to include a fairly complete statement of the evidence 
of those MSS. which the labours of textual critics have shewn to be 
representative of, or at least closely related to, some pre-Byzantine 
form of text. Most of the evidence has been taken direct from the 
8th edition of Tischendorf 's New Testament, but I have supplemented 
Tischendorf by reference to Professor Burkitt's translation of the 
Sinaitic Syriac, 1 to Mr. Homer's translations of the Egyptian versions, 2 
to the Koridethi MS. (), 3 the Freer MS. (W), 4 I etc., 5 69 etc., 6 
565, 7 700. 8 

The notation in the apparatus follows C. R. Gregory, Die grie- 
chischen Handschrifien des N.T. (Leipzig, 1908). 

1 Evangelion da Mepharreshe, ed. 
F. C. Burkitt (Cambridge, 1904). 

2 The Coptic Version of the N.T. in 
the Northern Dialect, otherwise catted 
Memphitic and Bohairic, vol. 2, St. 
Luke and St. John (Oxford, 1898) ; 
The Coptic Version of the N.T. in 
the Southern Dialect, otherwise called 
Sahidic and Thebaic, vol. 2, St. Luke 
(Oxford, 1911). 

3 Ed. Beerman and Gregory (Leip- 
zig, 1913)- 

4 Ed. H. A. Sanders, New Testament 
MSS. in the Freer Collection, pt. i. 
(New York, 1912). 

5 Ed. Lake, Texts and Studies, 
vol. vii. 

6 A Collation of Four Important 
Manuscripts of the Gospels, W. F. 
Ferrar, ed. T. K. Abbott (Dublin, 

7 Collation by Belsheim, Das Evan- 
gelium des Marcus n. d. Codex Pur- 
pureus Petropolitanus (Christiania, 
1885), Appendix. 

8 H.C.Hoskier, A Full Account and 
Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex 
Evangelium 604 ( = Gregory 700) 
(D. Nutt, 1890). 



B. S. EASTON, The Gospel according to St. Luke (Edinburgh, 1926 ; printed 

' U.S.A.). 

E. KLOSTERMANN, Das LuJcasevangelium (Handb. z. N.T. vol. ii. i), Tubingen, 
ist ed. 1919 ; and ed. 1929. (The second edition did not come into 
the writer's hands until his commentary was almost complete.) 
Das MarkusevangeUum, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1926). 
Das Matthausevangelium, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1927). 
M. J. LAGRANGE, Evangile selon Saint Luc (Paris, 1921). 
A. LOISY, Les fivangiles synoptiques (Paris, 1907). 
Vfivangile selon Luc (Paris, 1924). 

C. G. MONTEFIORE, The Synoptic Gospels, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Macmillan, 1927). 
A. PLUMMER, Gospel according to St. Luke (ICC., T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 


LONSDALE RAGG, St. Luk& (Westminster Commentaries, Methuen, 1922). 
A. E. J. RAWLINSON, St. Mark (Westminster Commentaries, Methuen, 1925). 
H. L. STRACK u. P. BILLERBEOK, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus 

Talmud und Midrasch, vols. i., ii., iv. (Miinchen, 1922-1928). 
J. WEISS, Die drei dlleren Evangelien (vol. i. of Die Schriften des Neuen 

Testaments, 3rd ed., Gottingen, 1917), revised by W. Bousset. 
J. WELLHAUSEN, Das Evangelium Lucae (Berlin, 1904). 
Das MarkusevangeUum, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1911). 
Das Evangelium Matthaei, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1914). 
A. WRIGHT, The Gospel according to S. Luke in Greek, edited ivith parallels, etc. 

(Macmillan, 1900). 
TH. ZAHN, Das Evangelium des Lucas ausgelegt (Leipzig, 1913). 


F. BLASS, Grammar of New Testament Greek, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, 

2nd ed. (Macmillan, 1905). 
J H. MOULTON, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. Prolegomena, 

3rd ed. (T. & T. Clark, 1908) ; vol. ii. ed. by W. F. HOWARD (1919-20). 



L. RADERMACHER, Neutestamentliche Grammatik (Handb. z. N.T. i. i) 

(Tubingen, 1911). 
A Concordance to the Greek Testament, W. F. MOULTON, A. S. GEDEN (T. & T. 

Clark, Edinburgh, 1897). 

A Concordance to the Septuagint, E. HATCH, H. A. REDPATH (Oxford, 1897). 
The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament : illustrated from the Papyri and other 

non-literary Sources, J. H. MOULTON and G. MILLIQAN (Hodder & 

Stoughton, London, 1914-1929). 
Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, GRIMM, ed. J. H. THAYER, 

4th ed. (T. & T. Clark, 1901). 
Griechisch-Deutsches Worlerbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, D. W. 

BAUER (2nd ed. of E. PREUSCHEN, Handworterbuch z. d. Schr. d. N.T.) 

(Giessen, 1928). 
The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. 

R. H. CHARLES, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1913). 
E. SCHURER, Geschichte des jildischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 vols. 

(4th ed. Leipzig, 1901-1909). 
W. BOUSSET, Die Religion des Judentums im spdthellenistischen Zeitalter., 

3rd ed. by H. GRESSMANN (Tubingen, 1926). 
W. SANDAY, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford, 1903). 
G. A. SMITH, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, loth ed. (London, 1903). 


I. ABRAHAMS, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (Cambridge, First Series 

1917 ; Second Series, 1924). 
M. ALBERTZ, Die synoptischen Streilgesprdche : ein Beitrag zur Formen~ 

geschichte des Urchristentums (Berlin, 1921). 
W. BOUSSET, Kyrios Christos (2nd ed., Gottingen, 1921). 
R. BULTMANN, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Gottingen, 1921). 

F. C. BURKITT, The Gospel History and its Transmission (T. & T. Clark, 

Edinburgh, 1906). 

The Earliest Sources for the Life of Jesus (2nd ed., Constable & Co., 1922). 
H. J. CADBURY, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (Harvard Theological 

Studies, vi., Harvard Univ. Press, 1919). 
The Making of Luke- Acts (Macmillan, 1927). 

G. DALMAN, The Words of Jesus, trans, from the German (T. & T. Clark, 


M. DIBELIUS, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tubingen, 1919). 
P. FEINE, Eine vorkanonische Uberliefemng des Lukas, Gotha, 1891. 
M. GOGUEL, Introduction au Nouveau Testament, vol. i. (E. Leroux, Paris, 



A. HARNACK, Sayings of Jesus, trans, from the German by J. R. Wilkinson 

(Williams & Norgate, 1908). 
Luke the Physician, trans, from the German by J. R. Wilkinson (Williams 

& Norgate, 1907). 

J. C. HAWKINS, Horae Synopticae, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1909). 
A. JULICHER, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, 2nd ed. (Tubingen, 1910). 
E. MEYER, Ursprung u. Anfange des Christentums, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1921-23). 
E. NORDEN, Antike Kunst-Prosa, 2 vols. (Teubner, Leipzig, 1898). 
Agnostos Theos (Teubner, Leipzig, Berlin, 1913). 
Die Geburt des Kindes (Teubner, Leipzig, Berlin, 1924). 
W. M. RAMSAY, Luke the Physician, and other Studies in the History of Eeligion 

(London, 1908). 
W. G. RUTHERFORD, The New Phrynichus (London, Macmillan, 1881). 

' Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ed. W. SANDAY (Oxford, 1911). 
K. L. SCHMIDT, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919). 

A. SCHWEITZER, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans, from the German, 

London, 1910). 
SPITTA, Die synoptische Grundschrift in ihrer Uberlieferung durch das Lukas- 

evangelium (Leipzig, 1912). 
V. H. STANTON, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Cambridge, vol. i., 1903 ; 

vol. ii., 1909). 

B. H. STREETER, The Four Gospels (Macmillan, 1924). 
V. TAYLOR, Behind the Third Gospel (Oxford, 1926). 

B. WEISS, Die Quellen des Lukasevangeliums (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1907). 
J. WEISS, Das Urchristentum (Gottingen, 1917). 

J. WELLHAUSEN, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd ed., Berlin, 1911). 
W. WREDE, Das Messiasgeheimnis inden Evangelien (2nd ed., Gottingen, 1913). 


B.C.H, Bulletin de correspondance hellenique. Paris and Athens. 

G.J.V. Geschichte des judischen Volkes, Schurer, ^th ed. 

H.Th.R. Harvard Theological Review. 

J.B.L. Journal of Biblical Literature. 

J.Th.S. Journal of Theological Studies. 

M.M. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the New Testament, illustrated 
from the Papyri. 

O.G.I.S. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. Dittenberger. 

P.B. Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testa- 

ments, D. W. Bauer (revised edition of E. Preuschen, Hand- 
worterbuch z. d. Schr. d. N.T.). 

S.B. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommemar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud 

und Midrasch. 

S.B. A. Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie. 

T. and S. Texts and Studies, ed. J. Armitage Robinson. 

T. und U. Texte und Untersuchungen, ed. Gebhardt and Harnack. 

Th.L.Z. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

W.H. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek. 

Z.N.T.W. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 

Z.W.Th. Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie. 


THE PREFACE (i. 1-4) 

THE Preface, composed in balanced form and classical idiom, conforms to 
a common type of Greek TT/DOCK/UOI/ and implies a certain literary claim 
on the part of the author. Cf. Dioscurides Hepl vAr^ IUT/OIKT/S i. i 
ti JJLOVOV dp^aitav aAAa /cat i/etov o-vvra^afjievtav rvjs rail/ 
(r/fevacrt'as re /cat Swajuews /cat So/a/zacrtas, (/uAraTe "Apete, 
TrapatTTijcraL (rot /XT) Kef*)!/ //.v/Se aAoyoi' opfj.rjv lar^rjKevai fj.e 
T7yi/5e TT)I/ TT pay pare LO.V ; Joseph. (7. Apion. i. I. I t/c avals //ev 
VTTO \a{JL/3dvw /cat Stu rJys Vept r>)i/ ap^atoAoytai/ cruyy/ofx^Tys, K parterre 
dvSpwv 'ETra^poStre, rots evTvofj.VOi<s avry TreTTOLrjKevat (fravepbv Trepl rov 
ye vows "fj[J.^v rwv ' lovSaiiav * ... eTret 5e cri'^vovs opio . . . tt 
. . . (.p-rjdrjv Sfti/ ypdifai (rvi'To/jiws, T(UI/ /ACI/ . . . ri)i/ c/coiVtof 

oVot TaA?7$6s elSevai /^oi'Aoi'rai . . . ; *6. ii. I. I Sta /xei/ oi5i> TOU Trporepov 

VS {j/roAetTTO/xeroiis TUJV yeypa<j>6ru)V TI a^ 5 T)p.(nv eAey^eti/ . . . ; 
i. I. i ; Letter of Arisleas, i, and other parallels in Klostermann. See also 
Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, p. 483 ; Wendland, Handbuch z. N.T. i. pp. 324 f. ; 
Cadbury in Beginnings, ii. p. 489. 

The Gospel and Acts formed two parts of one work, and the Preface is 
probably to be taken as a Preface to the whole work, the contents of the 
first part being resumed at the opening of the second (Acts i. i ). Cf. the 
Prefaces to Josephus C. Apion. cited above, and Diodorus Siculus who gives 
a Preface to his whole work at the beginning of Bk. I., and at the beginning 
of succeeding books usually resumes the book preceding and outlines the 
content of the book which is to come. Cf. Laqueur, ' Ephorus,' Hermes, 
xlvi., 1911, pp. 161 f. 

Nothing is known of the Theophilus to whom the work is addressed. 
Kpdria-ro's was used from the time of Septimius Severus as an official title 
for the equestrian Procurators, being equivalent to vir egregius ; but in the 
IE 1 B 


first century the usage was not thus restricted. 1 In Acts xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, 
xxvi. 25, the word is used in addressing the Procurator of Judaea ; but 
Josephus (quoted above) uses the word in addressing his patron, the publisher 
Epaphroditus, and Dionysius Hal. in dedicating his work De rhetoribus 
antiquis to his patron (otherwise unknown) Ammaeus. The title implies 
that Theophilus was of good social position. 2 That he was a Christian is 
a probable though not a certain conclusion from v. 4. See note. Dedication 
to an individual does not imply that the work was not intended for the 
public. Cf. the address of C. Apion. to Epaphroditus cited above, and ib. 
bk. ii. fin. crot Se, 'ETrcu^ooStre, /zaAwrra rrjv o.\.rj&tav uyaTruWt KOI Sta 
tre rots 6/Aoia)s (3ovXr]o~ofj.tvoi<s Trepl TOU yzvovs -rjp.Stv floevai TOVTO KCU TO 
Trpo avTov yypd(f)0(i> /3t/3Atoi>. 

The writer lives in a time when the impulse was widely felt to embody 
in narrative form the tradition which the original eye-witnesses and 
preachers had handed on to them. He too has accurately studied the 
whole history, and has therefore decided to construct an orderly and 
reliable account of what Theophilus has already learnt. The perspective 
is that of an age when avrorrrat, have passed away, and the need is 
felt for a trustworthy written account of the words and work of Jesus 
and of the salvation which he brought. We may compare Heb. ii. 3 f. 

Xaf3ovo~a AaAeib-$ai Sta rov Kvpiov, v~o r(av a.KOvcro.vT(av ets f)fj.S.<s 
e/BefScuwOr], (rvvc.Tri[j.apTvpovvTO<s rov 0f.ov cr^/Aetois re KOL repacriv KO.I 
TTOtKtAats Swa/xea"6i/ /cat Tr^ei'^uaros ayiov /xeptcr/jcots Kara rrjv O.VTOV 

The Preface forms a single period, with protasis (introduced by eT 
and apodosis. Protasis and apodosis each contain three cola, and each 
colon in the apodosis contains a phrase which answers to a phrase in the 
corresponding colon of the protasis: 'ETretSryTre/) TroAAot 

SHQY^O'I-*' Trept rwv TreTrA^po (0/077 /zevcoi/ Iv 
napedocdN HJmTN ol O.TT Q-PX*)'* ciVTOTrrcu /cat 
/zevot rov Xoyov, || e'So^e TrapriKoXovOrjKorL avtodev TTU.O-IV 
Oelrjs 0" ot ypcl\J/ai, 0eo<^tAe, | tVa eTTtyi^us trepl &v 
Aoywi/ rfiN ac9dXeiaN. Cf. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, 
pp. 1-20. 

1 Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners, E.T. iv. p. 75 ; Hirschfeld, JRom. 
VerwaUunysrjesch. i. p. 273 ; E. Meyer, Urspruny, i. p. 6, 

2 Cf. 2 Mace. iv. 12 ; Theophr. Charact. 5. 


EIIEIAHnEP nOAAOI lTr^d^<sav dvard&vQai I I. 
irepi Tcoz/ 7T'jr\'rjpod)op7]fjLei>coi> ev 

I. e'~eiS//7repl Good Greek; class. 
and later writers, e.g. Jos. Pref. 
to B.J. 6 'A/j^cxtoAoyeti/ fj.ev Si/ 
rd 'lovSaioui/ . . . vvv re axatpov 
eivai /ecu aAAws irepLTTov, 
Kat 'Iov8u.i(ov TroAAoi 

TT/JU e/xou TU T(ut> TrpoyovuH' 
TUUI/TO /ACT d/c/H/So'as. Here only 
in the Greek Bible. For the gram- 
matical construction of the Preface 
cf. the apostolic decree Acts xv. 24- 

TToAAot'J Greek writers very fre- 
quently begin a formal speech or 
preface with some part or derivative 
of TToAvs. Cf. Acts xxiv. 2 (speech 
of Tertullus), 10 (speech of Paul), 
Heb. i. I ; Ecclus. ProL, Dioscorides, 
quoted above, Xen. Mem. and other 
exx. quoted by Cad bury, Beginnings, 
ii. p. 492. That the use of a part 
of TroAi's was felt to be stylistically 
effective does not, of course, imply 
that the statement itself is not true 
to fact. Luke is speaking of what 
was matter of common knowledge. 
He himself used two, and prob- 
ably several, written documents 
in the composition of his own 

e-exetpr/rrai'] Orig.(/?07tt. in Luc. i.) 
suggests that the word implies criti- 
cism of TWV TrpoTrerujs KGU ^wp/.'j 
^a/Hrr/wTos iXOuvrutv eVt TTJV ai/a- 
y/Juc/nyi/ TCUI/ d'ayyeAuoi/. et^etpeii/ 
may be used (as Acts xix. 13) of 
undertakings which the speaker or 
writer criticises adversely, but this 
criticism is not implied by the word 
itself (cf. C. Apion. i. 2 ; Polyb. iii. 
i. 4, xii. 28. 3), and is not to be 
understood here. Luke, in point of 
fact, associates himself with his 
predecessors : <5oe /<u/W. It may, 
however, be presumed that, had he 

been entirely satisfied with their 
work, he would not have written 

ai/o.Taacr(9ai] A rare word. Cf. 
Plut. De soil, anim., Moralia 968 c, D ; 
Iren. Adv. haer. iii. 24 (Harvey) 
of Ezra's * reconstruction ' of the 
Scriptures after their destruction in 
the captivity: rot 1 '? rwv irpoyeyovo- 
rcoi/ TrpofoiTwv Tru.VT(i.<s dvaTUia 
Aoyovs, /cat aTroKaTGurTTycrat TOJ 
r~>]v Sia M(u(joj5 vo/wOar f,(t.}>. Blass 
would press this meaning here and 
interpret as 'to reconstruct' the 
material which had come down by 
tradition. But the verb has not 
this force in Aristeas 144, and here 
prob. the word is an equivalent 
for the more usual crwTdiro-fo'Oai. 
u.vay pa<f>it') } dvaypd^LV are found 
similarly almost interchangeable with 
(rt'yy/mc/ny, cruyyyou</>eti/ (Diod. Sic. v. 
i, 4; Arrian i. i). 

Trepi TMV . . . 7rpay//uTtoi'] On 
the assumption that the Preface is 
a Preface to the whole work (see 
above) ei/ r/ is considerably easier 
than if it be taken as Preface to the 
Gospel alone. With the works and 
words and resurrection of Jesus, the 
expansion of the Church is to be 
included among the Trpdy^ara Tre- 

7T A?//3O C/>0/3?7/<Ce I'd. . 

may mean ' to convince ' (cf. Rom. 
iv. 21, xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12), but the 
passive can scarcely be made to 
mean ' to be surely believed ' (Orig. 
al. A.V.). The word is here the 
equivalent of 7rA?ypooj 'to fulfil.' 
Cf. Col. iv. 17 /3AeVe -n/t/ 8(,ai<o\>!,av 
iyV TrayoeAu^s (.v Kiyu<o iva avrnv 
7r\-rjpoi<s with 2 Tim. iv. 5 r>)i> 


is perhaps preferred to 
7rA?ypoCi/ on account of its length, 




rov \6<yov, 

oi air 


3 TOt 

2 /cctflws] Ka6a D Eus (hist 

2. KaO^s] Found occasionally in 
later Greek prose writers. Very freq. 
in N.T. Censured by Phryn. cccxcvii. 
who approves itadd, read by D and 
Eus. in this place. 

Tro.ptSocrav] The good Attic form 
of the aor. in the plur. indie. Cf. 
Rutherford, Netc Pkrynichus, p. 220. 
Elsewhere in N.T. the plural, like 
the singular, is formed from the 
aorist in K, e.g. Lk. xxiv. 20, 42 ; 
Acts i. 26, iii. 13, xv. 30. The 
word does not necessarily connote 
oral tradition. See Acts vi. 14 T<X 
Wi] ci :ru/)eSa)Kei> I//AU/ Mavo~?/s ; 
Justin, Apol. i. 66 ot aTrocrroAot ci/ 
Tots yci/o/xevois VTT' aiiTuli/, a KaAetrcu ei'c 
OI'TOJS TrapfSiDKav. It is, however, 
natural to interpret the word of 
tradition, primarily oral, of which 
the writers, referred to above, had 
made use. The TroAAot and the 
ai'TOTrrai Kal vTrrjperai rov Aoyoi* 
are treated as distinct classes, though 
nothing forbids the supposition that 
some of the latter class were also 
to be found among the former. 
Cadbury (op. cil. p. 497; goes too far 
in saying that Mark "was declared 
by this very writer to be a v; 
Aoyoi)," for in Acts xiii. 5 v: 
clearly means a personal attendant. 
But the author would probably have 
reckoned him to be such. 

ot UTT' upX'*) 5 ro ^ Aoyo?.'] The 
phrase is to be taken together. 
ca'TOTTTai and I'Trrjperut rov Aoyoi/ 

/' / 

need not be distinguished into 
separate classes, but not all of the 
persons included need be assumed 
to have satisfied all the elements 
in the description. UTT' dp^s and 
yevo/xevoi are prob. best construed 
with the phrase as a whole, rov 

avTorcrai teal 

l jrapr]KO\ovQ'qKOTL 

eccl 3. 4 ; dem p. 120) 

Aoyoi' goes closely with innjpeTai cf. 
Acts vi. 4 rf/ SiaKovia, rov Aoyou, Gal. 
vi. 6 6 Ktt-njxoi'jMcvos rov Aoyov. 
Aoyos then means ' the word of 
God.' The material of the narratives 
referred to depended upon eye- 
witnesses and active participants in 
the preaching of the word from 
the beginning. Unlike a modern 
historian, an ancient historian is not 
always careful to name his sources, 
but he is naturally anxious to assure 
his readers that he is well informed. 
So Thuc. i. 22 and frequently in 
later historians ; cf . Cadbury, ad loc., 
Norden, Agnostos Theos, pp. 315 f. 
Cadbury speaks of such reference 
as a 'convention,' but an ancient 
writer would no more claim the 
authority of eye-witnesses without 
expecting his statement to be believed 
than a modern. Cf. Colson, J.Th.S. 
xxiv. (1923) pp. 300 f. 

UTT' <ip)(TJ<s] The beginning of the 
Christian movement was generally 
reckoned from the preaching of 
John. Cf. Acts i. 2 if., x. 37; Mk. 
i. i, and the elaborate synchronism 
Luke iii. i. 

3. 7rap>iKo\ov6r)KorL\ The verb 
means 'to follow,' 'to keep touch 
with,' either literally, as in C. Apion. 
i. IO where iraprjKokovO^Kora ro?,<s 
yeyowni/ contrasts with irapa. rwv 
tiStmui/ irvv6a.voiJ.tvoV) or meta- 
phorically, by study and enquiry, 
as in Dem. De cor. 172, p. 285. 
Luke was not an cuVo/rT^s for the 
ministry of Jesus at any rate, and 
the latter meaning must therefore 
be included here. The word does 
not itself mean 'to investigate,' 
but if one who was not himself 
ui''T07m;s is said to have followed 
accurately a course of events, in- 



avwOev TTOLO-LV afcpt,/3(i!)<f fcade$;f)<; 


irep wv 

vestigation must be implied. The 
rhythm and balance of the sentence 
require that api/3ws should be 
taken with TraprjKoXovOrjKOTL, and 
not, as by Cadbury, with ypdifsai. 

avuBev] Not to be sharply dis- 
tinguished in meaning from U.TT apx^js 
above. Cf. Acts xxvi. 4, 5. But 
Luke will not intend to exclude the 
events narrated in cc. [., ii. 

Traariv] Neut. * all the events.' 

Ku0e//s] Peculiar to Luke in Greek 
Bible (viii. I ; Acts iii. 24, xi. 4, 
xviii. 23). Found also in Test. XII. 
Pair., Jud. xxv. ; I Clem, xxxvii. 3 ; 
Plut. Sijmp. i. i. 5. Luke intends 
to give a continuous narrative. 
Chronological order was- probably 
in his mind. 

Oedc/nAe] Cf. Acts i. i. A common 
proper name from the third cent. 
B.C. For references to lit. see 
Cadbury, ad loc. Theophilus cannot 
be identified, but there is no reason 
to doubt that he was a real person. 

4. tVa 7riyi/uis . . . T?)V darfjid- 
Aeiai'] 'that you may receive sure 
information.' The meaning is prob- 
ably not different from yvdvai TO 
(Acts xxi. 34, xxii. 30), 
TI)I' ttcr(/>aAeiai> being per- 
haps here preferred for reasons of 
euphon y. No exact parallel is quoted 
to the use of the abstract noun 
(io-i/xiAcia as a virtual equivalent 
for TO tto-</>a.Ae's in its well-attested 
sense of * that which may be relied 
upon' (cf. Colson, J.Tk.8. xxiv. 
P- 33)j but the use of uAvy&to, and 
other abstract nouns in a concrete 
sense is frequent. Ropes (J.Th.S. 
xxv. p. 69) appositely quotes I Cor. 
xiii. 2 etSemt TTU.U-O.V XT/I/ yvtuviv 
where TVJV yvCoviv virtually means 
TO yi/<uirT6V, and Antiph. Oral. i. 13 
(p. 112. 43 f.) e'</>eiyoj' TOJI/ 

t, Kpancrre eo 
\o<ywv rrjv do-(j)d\iai>. 


learn the plain truth.' To give TV)I/ 
acr^aAetai/ the meaning of ' the 
quality of certainty ' fits the sense 
less well. The work does not merely 
prove or authenticate what Theo- 
philus has already learnt : rather it 
conveys in a permanent and assured 
form what he has previously learnt 
in a less systematic manner. 

KaTij\t']8i]<i] On the history and 
meaning of this word cf. Burton on 
Gal. vi. 6. In Acts xxi. 21, 24 the 
word is used of hostile reports con- 
cerning Paul. Cadbury prefers to 
think that hostile reports are 
referred to here : Theophilus is an 
influential non-Christian, and the 
work is written with the intention 
of meeting incriminating reports. 
For a criticism of this view (favoured 
by the editors of The Beginnings), 
see Colson, I.e. It is more probable 
that Ku,T-r)\ here, as in Acts xviii. 
25, Rom. ii. 1 8, i Cor. xiv. 19, 
Gal. vi. 6, refers to Christian instruc- 
tion, and that Theophilus was a 
professed Christian of good standing. 
That he is addressed as Kparune is 
hardly decisive against his being a 
member of the Christian brotherhood. 
On the other hand, he may have 
been an interested outsider, in which 
case KttT?/\iy07/s will refer to informa- 
tion received, not to instruction in 
the faith. 

TTC/H &v Adytui'] Idiomatic attrac- 
tion of the antecedent into the 
relative clause. Probably it repre- 
sents TMV Ady<01> Ol"<$ (cf. Acts 

xviii. 25, xxi. 24, where 5>v represents 
accus. attracted to case of ante- 
cedent) ; or possibly TOJI/ Adywi' TTC/H 
(Li', cf. Ps.-Plut. De fiuo. viii. i KU.T- 

?/ / Y?/(9ei,'s (5e TMV ITVfjI.fif. 

(od. Bornadikis, vol. vii. p. 296). 



The narrative begins with accounts of the births of Jesus and of his fore- 
runner, the Baptist. The first canonical Gospel has similarly expanded the 
Marcan type of gospel by carrying back the beginning from the Baptism of 
Jesus to his Birth ; but the Matthaean introduction which contains no 
reference to the birth of the Baptist differs in spirit profoundly from the 
Lucan, and not a little in historical detail. Both agree that Jesus was born 
at Bethlehem of a virgin mother, but whereas in Luke, Joseph and Mary are 
natives of Nazareth (ii. 39), who make a special journey to Bethlehem at the 
time of the birth of Jesus and return to Nazareth after the presentation of 
Jesus in the Temple, in Matthew, Joseph appears to be a native of Judaea 
(ii. 22) who only settles at Nazareth in Galilee with Mary his wife when, after 
returning from Egypt, he hears that Herod's son Archelaus has taken the place 
of his father Herod. In Matthew fulfilments of Messianic prophecy and the 
escape of the Messiah from his earthly enemy King Herod are controlling ideas. 
These do not appear in Luke, who gives a group of idyllic scenes, conceived 
in the spirit and expressed in the language of Old Testament narrative. 

The two chapters as they stand consist of a series of some seven scenes 
in which the annunciation to Zacharias and the birth of John balance the 
annunciation to Mary and the birth of Jesus : 

i. 5-25. The annunciation of the i. 26-38. The annunciation of the 
birth of John to Zacharias. birth of Jesus to Mary. 

i. 39-56. The meeting of Mary with Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias. 

i. 57-80. The birth and circum- ii. 1-40. The birth and circumcision 

cision of John, followed by the pro- of Jesus, followed by the prophetic 

phetic greeting of Zacharias to his greetings of Simeon and Anna, when 

son. the infant is presented in the Temple. 

ii. 41-52. An incident in the boyhood of Jesus breaks the interval between 
the infancy and the public ministry of the Lord. 

Nothing is known as to the source of these narratives, and very different 
theories have been propounded. Many critics hold that they are based upon a 
written Semitic source, possibly Hebrew (so Resch, 'Das Kindheitsevangelium,' 
T.u.U. x. 5 (1897), PP- 2 9 f- > Gunkel, Zum religionsgesch. Vcrstdndnis d. N.T. 
pp. 67 f. ; De Lagarde, Hitth. iii. 345), but more probably Aramaic (Plummer, 
Bousset, Gressmann). Gressmann (in Klostermann) suspects mistranslation 
of an Aramaic original as the explanation of some obscurities in the present 
Greek text (i. 17, 25, 49, 51 ; ii. ii). It must always be precarious to argue 
from the presumed text of a lost original. The elucidations proposed by Gress- 


mann are in no case essential to the sense, and do not provide any decisive con- 
firmation of the theory of an Aramaic source. Others, e.g. Harnack, explain 
the Semitisms as due to direct imitation of the LXX, and regard the whole 
as a free composition by the evangelist himself. " The Hebraisms, whether 
adopted or inserted from the Old Testament, are intentional ; the whole 
style is artificial, and is intended to produce an impression of antiquity a 
purpose which has been really fulfilled " (Harnack, Luke the Physician, E.T., 
p. 217 ; cf. BerL Sitz. Ber., 1900, xxvii.). Parallels, close and frequent, to the 
language of the LXX are noted below, as well as resemblances to phraseology 
found elsewhere in the Lucan writings. But it is probable that the evangelist 
was not the first to conceive pictures of the infancy of John and of Jesus and 
that he has made use of earlier accounts, whether written or oral, refashioning 
them to a greater or less extent, as he has done the rest' of his material. 
J. Weiss (Das Urchristentum, pp. 564 f.) thinks of the stories as circulating 
among Palestinian Christians after A.D. 70. The sympathetic portrayal of 
national Messianic hopes, the familiarity with Jewish sentiment in respect of 
the misfortune of childlessness, and the generally accurate acquaintance with 
the usages of the Jewish priesthood at the Temple, are in favour of a Pales- 
tinian origin for the stories which Luke has utilised. 

Norden (Die Geburtdes Kindes, pp. 102 f.) adopts the theory propounded by 
Volter (Die evangelischen Erzdhlungen von der Geburt u. Kindheit Jesu, Strass- 
burg, ign),that the original nucleus of these chapters dealt only with the birth 
of the Baptist (i. 5-25, 41-80) and emanated from the community of the 
Baptist's disciples ; the narratives of the annunciation to Mary and the circum- 
stances attending and following upon the birth of Jesus were modelled upon 
and adapted to the earlier source. In the earlier source the angel Gabriel was 
sent ' in the sixth month ' (i. 26), not to Mary, but to Elizabeth, and it was 
at the angel's salutation that the babe first leaped in the womb of Elizabeth. 
The angel then revealed to Elizabeth as in the present narrative she reveals 
to Mary the name of her son that is to be born. This would explain how 
Elizabeth knows (v. 60) by what name her child is to be called. The theory 
is supported by the singular absence of Christian ideas in the sections relating 
to John. Only at the meeting of Elizabeth and Mary (on this theory due to 
the later editor) and in the later verses of the Benedictus is the subordina- 
tion of John to his greater successor hinted at. The words of Gabriel to 
Zacharias are Jewish, not Christian, in their outlook. John is to be the 
Messenger of Malachi, not the forerunner of the Messiah. Volter holds that 
the Benodictus in its present form has been expanded by the Christian editor : 




the reference to ' the horn of salvation ' which God has raised up ' in the 
house of his servant David,' and the closing reference to the approaching 
Messianic salvation are interpolations ; the original hymn consisted only >f 
vv. 68, 71-75. 

The dismemberment of the Benedictus, however, is not very convincing. 
The omission of vv. 69, 70 would, it is true, avoid the parenthesis of v. 70 
between v. 69 and the accusative irtaTijptay in v.-ji, but v. 69 comes in with 
great appropriateness in the present text after the opening verse, and, if we 
are unwilling to conjecture that vv. 69, 70 are interpolated, we must, as 
Vb'lter sees, suppose that Zacharias knew his wife's kinswoman to be the 
destined mother of the heir to David's throne. The Benedictus as it stands 
links together the mission of John and the mission of Jesus. Moreover, the 
unity of style and the close similarity in structure between the account of the 
appearance of Gabriel to Zacharias and his appearance to Mary tell in favour 
of the hypothesis that a single hand is responsible for both the annunciations 
as we read them. Norden lays stress upon ' the sixth month,' v. 26. This, 
he urges, is explained if the narrative originally referred to Elizabeth, for it 
is in the sixth month that the first movements of the unborn babe occur. 
This may well be the true explanation why the date is mentioned, and it may 
still be adopted, if the narratives are all held to be of a piece ; for Mary, in 
the text (v. 39), arose and went after the annunciation ' with haste ' to visit 
her kinswoman. No considerable interval of time elapses, and ' the sixth 
month ' governs the whole narrative down to v. 56. 

5 ETENETO tV rats rj/j,epaL$ 'HpcoSou ySacrtXew? 

KOL ryvvrj 

eic r&v OwyaT&pwv ' Kapaiv, KOI rb ovop.a 

5. t Hp(o8ov ^SatriAeios TT/S 'Ion- 
Sat as] Cf. Mt. ii. i. Herod the 
Great was made King of the Jews 
by M. Antonius 40 B.C., and died 
4 B.C. 'lovScuo. here, as freq. in 
Luke, includes the whole of Palestine. 
Cf. iv. 44, vi. 17, vii. 17, xxiii. 
5; Acts x. 37. For the restricted 
meaning see v. 65 infra. 

lepevs rts] In Prolev. Jac. viii. 
Zacharias is transformed into the 
High Priest. 

o^o/xttTiZa^a/atas] Anot uncommon 
Jewish name. See Josephus, Index. 

*A/?ta] The eighth of 
the twenty-four classes into which 
the priests were divided (i Chron. 
xxiv. 10). The distribution of the 
priests into classes (ec^/ze/Hat LXX I 
Chron. xxviii. 13; e'c/r^/ze^i'Ses Trarpta-t 
Joseph.) ascribed to David was still 
in force at the time of Josephus 
(Ant. vii. 14. 7). Each course in 
turn came up to Jerusalem for a 
week's service at the Temple. Cf. 
Schiirer, ii. pp. 286 f. 

/< TIUJ/ tfuyu.Tt.p()v 'Aapwi/j The 
Priests were required by the Law 


i evavriov rov 6 
KOI $iKai(t)/j,ao~LV 

reKVOV, KaOon 7 

I. 10] 

avrrjs EiXeicrdfier. rjcrav Se St/cciioi 
0eov 7ropvo/j,evoL ev 

rOV KVp'iOV a/JLefJiTTTOl. Kal OVK rjV 

TIV [?;] 'EA,etcra/3eT o~relpa, 
ev rat? 7;//,joat9 avrwv r/aav. 'E-yevero e eV 8 

TW leparevetv avrov ev rrj rd^ei r//9 ecfrrjuepia? avrov 
evavri rov 6eov Kara ro e6o<$ 7-779 ieparias eXa^e rov Qv- 9 
/jLLao-ai el(re\6ojv ei? rov vaov rov Kvpiov, KOI rrav TO IO 

7 rj E\ei<ra/3eT orn ?? B 69 al pauc 
(Lev. xxi. 14) to marry virgins of ZXa\e. here. Freq. in Gospel (esp. 

in cc. i., ii.). Not in Acts. Freq. 
in LXX ; (2) foil, by /cut and another 
vb. in indie., auros or avroi usu. 
following /cat. Freq. in Gospel. In 
Acts only v. 7, and there doubtful. 
Freq. in LXX ; (3) foil, by infin. like 
Gk. o-vi'f&i: iii. 21; vi. i, 12; xvi. 

Israelitish birth, but they were not 
restricted to priestly families. 

'EAeio-tt/^er] The name of Aaron's 
wife (Ex. vi. 23). 

In style and vocabulary the verse 
recalls Ju. xiii. 2 KU.L t^v dvrjp ei$ UTTO 
UTTO SI'I/JLOV o~i'yy(.i'tia<5 rov 

i, Kul 6Vo/xtt cu'-co Mai/we, Kal 22. Frcq. in Acts. All the Lucan 

exx. are collected Plummer p. 45. 
The *iV1 construction is used when 
" there is a clause specifying the 
circumstances under which an action 
takes place" (Driver). This also 
Ivavriov IJLOV) explained by the satisfies Lucan usage except some- 

yi'i'i mr(o crreipa Ka OVK 

6. oLK(Lt,oL . . . fi'uvriov Tou ^eor] 
In the unreflective sense of the O.T. 
(e.g. Gen. vii. I Kal dirtv /cr/nos 6 
7r/5os Nwc ... ere iS 

words that follow, irope\>6fjievoi . . . 
TOII /ayj/oc, for which cf. Gen. 
xxvi. 5; Num. .xxxvi. 13; Deut. 
iv. 40. 

had fulfilled all, so 

times, e.g. xvi. 22, in the non- 
Hebraic constr. (3). Cf. Moulton, 
ProL p. 1 6. The idiom occurs rarely 
in Mark and Matthew apart from the 
formula ore ere/Xeirei/ KT/\., 

that no fault could be found. Cf. constr. (i), which closes in Mt. each 

Phil. iii. 6. of the five great bodies of teaching. 

7. Like Abraham and Sarah they There is no corresponding constr. in 

had no child, and like A. and S. Aramaic. The occurrence of the 

they were old ; Gen. . xviii. 1 1 phrase in the N.T. is therefore a Se /cat 2<ippu. Trpeo-fiurfpoi sign of the influence of Hebrew, and 

Trpo/3ej3rji<6T(.<s ^/AC/HOI/. KaOon Lucan probably of Biblical, idiom. 
only in N.T. In Acts ii. 45, iv. 35, 
it is used in its correct sense : 

' according as ' ; here, as often in 

9. Kara, ro e#os T/";S teparms] Best 
taken with e'Aa^e. It was decided 
by lot which priest should offer the 

later Gk., it is equivalent to Stort. incense. Cf. Mishna, Tamitl, and 

Blass, 78. 6. 

8. fyivtro oe] Very freq. in Lk. 
corresponding to the Heb. TH. 
It is used with three constructions : 

Schurer, ii. pp. 351 f. 

etcrt/V^wi' goes with $t'/uu(rut. 
er's TUI> vaov rov Kvptov] The chosen 
priest enters the ruds, the building 

(i) foil, by another vb. in indie, as which contained the Holy of Holies, 



TOV \aov Trpoa-ev^p^evov et;<a rfj &pa TOV 6v- 
I I /ua/mro?' w(j)dr] Be avTa> ayyeXos Kvpiov eo-ro>9 etc 

1 2 TOV BvcnacrT^piov TOV $u/ua//,aro9. teal tTaoayQit] 

1 3 pt>as lo~(*)v, /ecu (fjofto? 7T67reo'i> eV CLVTQV. elirev Be 
avTOV o aryyeXo? M?; (j>oj3ov, Zta^apia, BIOTI elo~ i r)Kovo~6r) 
77 Se^a't? (Tov, KCU 77 <yvvr) o~ov 'EXetcra/JeT yevvrfcrei viov 

14 <roi, fcal Kd\ecrei<> TO ovojjba CLVTOV Icodvrjv KOI ecrrat 'Xcupd 
crot Kal dya\\iao-L<f, KCU TroXXol eVl T; yevecrei CLVTOV ya- 

15 prjcrovTai' ecrrat 7a/D fjieya? evftwriov Kvpiov, real O!NON 

OY M^< H(M, ^^^ irvevfJiaTos ayuov r 

and Holy Place, to be dist. from TO 
te/MH', the whole temple area. 

10. rfj a>py. TOV ^I'/iia/Aaro?] 
Incense was burnt twice a day, before 
the morning and after the evening 
sacrifice. Philo, De victimis 3 

Se i<a8' fKiitmjv t'liiepav 

ra 7rd)'T(oi' evwSccrraTtt 

euro) TOU KaTaTreracr/xaro 1 ? 

TOS ly/Xc'ot 1 AVU Svopevov, trpo re 

GtaO ivTfi 9vir[u<s K<U fj.e 

pivrjv. The number of people in 

attendance is perhaps an indication 

that the evening offering is here 

thought of. Cf. Dan. ix. 21. 

11. (oc/i#)y Se . . . Kv/7iW] Cf. Ju. 
xiii. 3. It was on a similar occasion 
that John Hyrcanus (135-104 B.C.) 
received the divine communication 
that his sons had conquered 
Antiochus, which he forthwith 
announced to the multitude without 
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 10. 3). Cf. also, for a 
divine manifestation at an offering, 
Wenamon's journey to Phoenicia, 
Grcssmann, Allorienlulische Texle u. 
Bilder, i. 226. 

13. M?/ (jiof3oi<] A typical address 
of a supernatural being to a 
frightened man. Cf. Ju. vi. 23 ; 
Dan. x. 12, 19 ; Mk. vi. 50; Mt. 
xxviii. 10; Rev. i. 17; Horn. //. 
xxiv. 171. 

>} Sort's aw] We were not told 

that Z. was praying for a son in his 
old age, and his incredulity, v. 18, 
does not readily suit these words of 
the angel. It is a mistake to look 
for close consistency in narratives 
of this character. Cf. v. 34. The 
difficulty here has often been met 
(e.g. by Chrys., Plummer, Lagrange) 
by supposing that the prayer of Z. 
had been for the redemption of 
Israel. This is too subtle. The 
following words imply that he had 
prayed for a son. The 'joy' of Z. 
and of * many ' is to follow upon 
the answer to Z.'s prayer. The 
language again is closely reminiscent 
of the LXX. Cf. Gen. xviii. 10; 
Ju. xiii. 24. 

15. eVwjTioj'] A favourite prep, 
with Lk. (22 times in Gosp., 13 in 
Acts). Exc. Jo. xx. 30 not in other 
Gospels. In Paul in confessions 
' before God ' ' before men.' Freq. 
in Rev. and in LXX. Also attested 
for the vernacular by papyri from the 
third cent. B.C. onwards. But the 
frequency of its occurrence in Luke 
may be set down to the influence of 
LXX, where it is in regular use for 
"OD^. Cf. Introd. p. Ixxix. 

olvov /cat crtK-epa] In Ju. xiii. 
fermented drink is forbidden to the 
mother, but in LXX (v. 14) also to 
the son. There is here no mention 

en eic 


jj,r)Tpb<? avrov, KOI vroAAoi;? rwv vi&v ^\crparjX 1 6 
eVt Kvpiov rbi> 6ebv avrwv KOL ai/ro? TT/OO- I / 
eXevcrerai evaywiov avrov ev irvev^ari KOL Bvvdj^et, ' 
eniCTpeV<M K&P&IAC TT<vrepooN erri TGKNA Kal aTreiOel? ev ^ 
$iKaLa>v, eroi/Jida'ai, Kvpiq) \aov /careo-KevaGfjievov. KOI elirev 
Za%apia<? irpbs rov ayye\ov Kara rl lyvaia-ouai, rovro ; e^co I 8 
yap elfjn 77y?ecr/3i;T779 KOI f) <yvvr) JJLOV Trpofieft'ijKVLa ev rat? 
r}fj,pai<> avrrj^. /ecu airoicpiOels o ayyeXo? eiirev avrw 1 9 
Ta^pirj\ o TrapecrTrfKcas EVCOTTLOV TOV Oeov, KOI 

17 TrpoeXeuererat] TrpoireXeuiTeTat B*CL al 

of allowing the hair to grow. John 
therefore was not to be a Nazirite. 
A certain contrast between strong 
drink and the holy spirit is probably 
to be felt. Cf. Eph. v. 18 K<U 

n j > T s _ 




crt e/< /<ot/\ias [JiijTpus avrov] A 
Hebraism. It may be questioned 
whether this means ' from birth,' 
as li< Kot/Via? //.jyr/oo? fnov Ps. xxi. 
(xxii.) n, or 'while still in the 
womb,' as appar. Ju. xiii. 7 ; Is. 
xlix. 5. The latter is the interpr. 
of syr.sin and, of the ancients 
generally. e'rt is slightly in its 
favour, and it is perhaps supported 
by w. 41, 44. 

17. The angel's words are founded 
upon^Mal. iii. I and iv. 4, 5. Cf. 
the use of the latter passage in 
Ecclus. xlviii. 10. 

ei'i'oiriov ui'roii]i.e. ]\.vpiov rovBeor. 
There is no mention of Messiah. The 
angel does not go beyond Malachi. 
!' Tri'eiyiUTi . . . 5 HAe/'u] John is not 
directly'said to be Elijah, as in Mt. 
xi. 14; Mlc. ix. 13 (omitted at Lk. 
* x - 37)- In Jo. i. 21 the Baptist 
declares that ho is not Elijah. eVt- 
vrptyai, Kap8ia<s . . . TCKI'U] The quo- 
tation is nearer to the Heb. than to 
LXX, but the complementary clause 

' to turn the hearts of the children 
to the fathers' is omitted in favour 
of a further interpretation. It seems 
best to understand the saying literally 
of family relations, as in Mai., rather 
than, with Loisy, to interpret 
of the pious patriarchs, and 
of the disobedient sons of the present 
generation. Iv (/ywvvyo-et SLKUIWV] 
i.e. that they may walk in the 
wisdom of the just, iv is not mis- 
used for ei's. Blass, 41. I. ITCH- 
Dep. on, not co-ordinate with, 
'To make ready for 
the Lord a people well prepared ' ; 
i.e. for the coming of God's reign. 
KttT<r/f'ucj-/>icfoj'] Gressmann (in 
Klostermann) suggests that this re- 
presents Aram. |^pn which means 
not only 'prepared,' but 'just,' 
' good.' 

18. Cf. Gen. xv. 8 tlirtv Se 
['A/5/aa/x] AecTTTora Ktyjte, KUTU ri 

Gen. xviii. 11 

Se Kat 



A] The angel who made 
to Daniel (cc. ix., x.). 
s ei'd'iTTioi' TO f' Oeov] This 
be said of angelic beings in 
general (Job i. 6); but here it 
probably marks out Gabriel as one 
of a special class: cf. Tobit xii. 15 

'\ '\ C TD;'\ T > " < \ 

eyo; ei/u 1 a^avyA, /.*? e/< TMV CTTTU 



ji' \a\rfcraL vrpo? ere /cat eva<yfye\icra(r6ai crot ravra' 
2O Kal IBov eo-y ertcoTrwz/ Kal ^ Swa/ievo? \a\r)ffai a%pi 77? 

ilHepas yevrjrai ravra, avO* wv ov/c eVtcrreycra? roZ? A-cyo*.? 
2 1 yu-ou, o'lruves Tr\r)pa)6r)crQvrai els TOV Kaipov avrcov. teal rjv 

o Xao? TrpocrSoKWV rov Za^apiav, Kal eOavaa^ov ev rw 

22 xpovL&w ev T&> vaa> avrov. e^e\dov Be OVK eSvvaro \a\rjcrai 
avrois, Kal e7re<yvc0<rav on, oirraalav e&paKev ev rw va<' Kal 

23 avro<i fju Siavevwv aurot?, Kal Siefjievev Ka)(j>6<;. Kal eyevero 
a)? eTrhijcrOrjcrav al rj/jiepai, rfjs \eirovp<yia<f avrov, a7rrj\6ev 

24 et? rov O!KOV avrov. Mera Be ravras ra? fjuepas 
<rvv\a(3ev 'EXetcra^eT f) yvvr) avrov" Kal irepietcpvftev eavrrjv 


dyyeAwv ot Trpocrava^epoi'cri 
rds Trpocrevxas TOJI/ 
eicTTropevovTai evtoTTtov 
TOO dyiov ; Rev. i. 4 ; Enoch xl. ; 
and see Bousset, Rd. d. Jud. pp. 

325 f- 

20. crtcoTrwv] Here, as in 4 Mace. 

x. 1 8, virtually an adj. For the 
combination of positive and negative 
statement ef. Acts xiii. II 
fj,?] /?A.e7ro)i/ TOV i]A.iov 
Common in Heb. lit. 

Slightly stronger than of. 
It gives a qualitative force to the 
clause ; " Thou hast not believed my 
words, which nevertheless [deserved 
credence for they] shall receive their 
due fulfilment." 

ci's TOV KCU/JOV auTwv] Not to be 
dist. from eV TO) Katpy avrutv. 

21. Zacharias is clearly thought 
of as being alone in the Holy Place. 
According to the Mishna, Tamid 
vii. 2, five priests were engaged 
together in the Holy Place at the 
time of the offering of incense, and 
together came out and blessed the 

22. When Zacharias came out of 
the Temple, he was unable to speak. 
He would therefore be incapable of 
fulfilling his office of blessing the 
waiting people. But the blessing is 


not directly alluded to. 
OTL KTA.] The people are at once 
able to assign the true cause for the 
priest's dumbness. It was the natural 
effect of a supernatural vision. Cf. 
Daniel x. yf., esp. v. 15, KU.I ev r< t o 
avrov AaAvJrrru /xer lfjt,ov ra 7rpoa~- 
T(iy/j.aTa TUUTO, e'6\o/ca TO Trpocrwrrov 
/zoi; e?rt rr)v yijv Kal ecriwTrrjcra. 
I8ov tos 6/Aot'uKTts 
T/^aTO /xov TWI/ \ 
TO cno[Jia. uov KO.I e\d 

23. Zacharias returns home when 
the week's residence of his course is 
ended. Cf. v. 5 n. 

24. It is not clear why Elizabeth 
hid herself for the five months. No 
such custom seems to be known. 
We may perhaps suppose that the 
elderly woman does not wish to 
court comment, although ancient 
sentiment was not inclined to re- 
ticence in "such circumstances. Or 
she may retire in order to give her- 
self to thankful devotion (J. Weiss), 
as the next verse may be intended 
to suggest. Perhaps, however, the 
explanation is to be sought in the 
necessities of the narrative (so Klos- 
termann). The pregnancy of Eliza- 
beth is to be first announced by 
the angel to Mary in the sixth 
month. The retirement of Elizabeth 


Trevre, \eyovaa on Oimu? pot 7re7rolr]Kev Ki^no? eV 2 5 
at? eirel^ev a<f>e\elv oVetSo? pov ev 

will explain why the news has ^/jwTrots] Cf. Gen. xxi. 6 eiTrev Se 

not reached her young kinswoman "Zappa FeAcoTa //ot cTrot^o-ev Kv/xos, 

before. xxx. 23 enrei/ Se 'Pa^A 'A</>eiAei/ 

25. Elizabeth, like the holy women 6 0eos /*ov TO 6Vet8os. But these 

of old, rejoices that the shame of utterances are ascribed to the wives 

childlessness has been removed from of the patriarchs after the births of 

her. their children, not, as here, after 

oi>T<os p-oi ireTToirjKev . . . li/ av- conception. 


The annunciation to Mary of the birth of Jesus is a counterpart to the 
annunciation to Zacharias of the birth of John. In spite of significant 
differences, the similarity in structure between the two narratives is close. 
The appearance of Gabriel to Zacharias (v. u) is balanced by Gabriel's 
appearance and salutation to Mary (v. 28). Like Zacharias (v. 12) Mary 
(v. 29) is distressed. Mary (v. 30) like Zacharias (v. 13) receives from the 
angel a reassurance and the promise of a son. Like Zacharias (v. 18) she 
expresses a doubt as to how this can be (v. 34). And like Zacharias (v. 19) 
she receives from the angel an answer to her doubts (v. 35 f.). 

When pressed the narrative of the Annunciation is found to be wanting 
in cohesion. Mary betrothed to Joseph, a scion of the royal line, is to bear 
an heir to David's throne, ' of whose kingdom there shall be no end,' but 
Mary is to bear her son, not by a man, but by the power of God's Spirit. 
Two ideas lie here side by side, and they are not reconciled. The sonship 
of Jesus to Joseph is essential to the former idea, and is ruled out by the 
second. It is the same discrepancy which will necessitate the distorting 
interpolation at the beginning of the genealogy in c. iii. : Jesus was the son 
of Joseph, ws i/o/jueTO. 

Some critics (e.g. Streeter, Harnack) have sought to ease the difficulty 
by the hypothesis of interpolation. The only words in this Gospel which 
involve the idea of conception without a human father are the patent inter- 
polation of the evangelist at iii. 23 and the two verses 34 and 35 in this 
section, b omits the words TTWS TT<U . . . yii/oKr/ao and transfers the 
answer of Mary, Ecce ancilla Domini . . . (v. 38), to this place, b is 
supported by e in omitting the latter sentence at v. 38. It has been argued 
that this may reflect an earlier form of text in which conception by Mary 
as virgin was not implied. 


But the unsupported testimony of b for omission is not strong textual 
evidence, 1 and there are other reasons for hesitation in respect of a theory 
of simple interpolation, whether of v. 34 alone or of vv. 34 and 35. If 
Mary's hesitating question is omitted we destroy the parallelism in structure 
between the two annunciations. Moreover, although a tolerable meaning 
would be left in the remaining verses, several fine points would be destroyed : 

(i.) The opening salutation would lose something in appropriateness if 
the succeeding narrative were not to foretell the peculiar part which Mary 
was to play. 

(ii.) More serious would be the weakening of Mary's concluding words 
(v. 38). They are a fitting response to the prophecy that the Holy Spirit 
is to come upon her, but they would have no special point if the Annuncia- 
tion had been confined to the destiny of Mary's son. 

(iii.) The reference to Elizabeth's miraculous conception comes in well 
after the prophecy of v. 35. It would make a less appropriate sequel to 

v- 33- 

A simple theory of interpolation, therefore, seems not satisfactory. The 
narrative as a whole coheres with vv. 34, 35, and it is maimed by their 

But while recognising the literary unity of the present text, it is plausible 
to conjecture that an earlier and unrecoverable form of the Annunciation in 
which Jesus was assumed to be the son of Joseph may lie behind it. The 
first narrators who spoke of Mary as affianced or wedded to Joseph ' of the 
house of David' may be supposed to have thought of Jesus as Joseph's 
son. 2 And in the Lucan narratives of c. ii. there is no care to mark that 
Joseph was not the father. At ii. 5 Mary (according to the reading of 
syr.sin, lat.vt) is spoken of simply as Joseph's wife. At ii. 27, 41 Mary 
and Joseph are yoi/etg. And again at ii. 48 we read o irar^p croii i<al eyco. 

So far as we know the idea of conception without a human father was 
unknown in orthodox Judaism. But it was widely prevalent in the ancient 
world. 3 Plato's own nephew Speusippos could relate that the story went in 

1 Possibly the scribe of b preferred to think that Mary would at once express her 
acceptance of the angel's message, rather than betray the hesitation which is implied 
in the regular text of v. 34. In any case the crucial verse 35 stands in b as in all 
other MSS. and versions. 

2 Norden (Die Geburt des Kindcs, p. 81) wishes to derive the double position of 
Mary as wife and virgin mother from a traditional Egyptian motif of the woman who 
was at once bride to the God and wife to a human husband. I cannot think that 
this is at all likely. 

3 Cf. Usener, Weihnachtsfest, pp. 70 f. 


Athens that his uncle was the child of Perictione by Apollo. 1 The stories 
of the miraculous births of Alexander, the elder Scipio, Augustus, are familiar. 
That it was natural to expect supernatural birth in the case of a religious 
leader is illustrated by the claim put into the mouth of Simon Magus that 
his mother Rachel conceived him as a virgin before she and Antonius came 
together. 2 Thus when the Church moved out into the Hellenistic world of 
Caesarea, Antioch, and beyond, it would be very natural that cognate ideas 
concerning the manner of the conception of Jesus should find a lodgement, 
while at the same time the governing monotheistic belief would reject gross 
conceptions of divine paternity. Both Matthew and Luke represent the 
conception of Jesus as due to the operation of the Spirit of God upon 
Mary, while she was still virgin. 

Perhaps we may here follow Norden 3 in tracing a special affiliation with 
Egyptian ideas. Plutarch, Num. 4, gives it as an Egyptian belief that it is 
not impossible for the Spirit of God to draw near to a woman and to beget 
in her the beginnings of birth (yvi'ouKt n\v OVK u.8vvarov Trvevfj.a Tr/Y^criuo-cu 
Oeov /cat rtvas evreKCLV dp\a<s yevecrews). Elsewhere (De Isid. et Osir. 36) 
Plutarch says that the Egyptians call Trvev/j.0. (* breath ' or ' wind ') Zeus, i.e. 
Amon. And this is confirmed by some original Egyptian texts. This belief 
in the possibility of conceiving by 7n'eu/<ia, Norden thinks, has been crossed 
by a Hellenistic exaltation of the idea of virginity, such as is found e.g. in 
Philo, De Cher, xii.-xv. Philo, be it noted, uses virginity in a spiritual, not 
a literal sense, and has no idea of a virgin birth. 

Norden goes further and argues that the story of the Annunciation 
represents a monotheistic and Christian refinement of the old Egyptian myth 
that the reigning Pharaoh is the offspring of the Sun-god Amon- Re and 
the Queen. He gives a parallel to the angelic Annunciation from a fourth- 
century Greek astrological writer Hephaestion, whose works betray no sign of 
Christian influence. Hephaestion speaks of a child who is to be born under 
the influence of a certain constellation in these words 4 : o Se iirl TOV 
TP'LTOV (so. SeKai'Ov TOV 'YS/DO^uov) yVi/(6/zei/os e/< Otuv cr7ru/)rycreTcu, 

1 Diog. Laert. iii. 2 ; Jer. Adv. Jovin. i. 42 (Migne, P. L. xxiii. p. 275) ; of. Orig. 
C. Ccls. i. 37 oiidtv 5' UTOTTOV Trpos "EXXrypas K.O.L 'EXX^juKcus iffTopicus xpTjcraa^at, IVa 
Mq SoKwfj.ev fj.6voi ry TrapaSo^aj iaropia TOLUTT] (i.e. virgin birth) KexpilvOai. e'5oe yap 
Ttcriv ou irepl d.pxa.iwi> Ttfwc loroptwi' KGU ypwiKui', dXXa Kal irepL TLVUV x^^ ical 

>, dvaypd-^ai. ws Svvarov on Kal HXaTW^ a.7ro rrjs > A / u^>t/crt6^7?s 

TOU 'ApiffTuvos aurrj or we XfletV, <?ws aTroKur/wet rbi> (' 'ATroXXcovos airaptvra. 

2 Clem, llecogn. ii. 14. 

3 Geburt dcs Kindes, ]>p. 76 f. 

4 Hephaestion, p. 65. 17 (ed. Engelbrecht). 





Otwv 9pTr]0~Kfvd'/)o-sTa.L KOI eVrai KOO~p,oi<pdT(ap 

auT< t o v7ra/cov<rT<u. Purge this of its polytheism, introduce the 
Hebraic colouring 'the throne of David,' 'the house of Jacob' and 
the distance is not great from the Christian Annunciation divine birth, 
'he shall be great,' 'all things shall obey him.' With these are to be 
grouped the divine child of Virgil's Fourth Eclogue, and the Immanuel 
prophecy of Isaiah vii. All four Norden holds to be variations of the 
Egyptian theme of the divine child Hoxus. 

In his exposition of our text Norden perhaps lays himself open to the 
criticism that he emphasises insufficiently the direct and certain relations of 
the angelic Annunciation with the language of Isaiah ix. Even if it be true 
that Egypt provided a background of ideas and forms both to Isaiah and 
to the Gospel story, yet there remains an inner historical relation between 
the prophet and the Gospel. Egypt is not the uniting link between Isaiah 
and Luke, even if Egypt has exercised influence upon both. The link is the 
Church-nation -of the Jews of which from the very outset Jesus was regarded 
as Messianic King. In the Lucan Annunciation we seem to have moved 
beyond the primitive Judaeo-Christian world of thought, yet in Luke too 
the Isaianic text is central, not peripheral. 

26 'Ez> Se TW /jujvl TO) e/crw aTrea-rdXri 6 a<yyeA,o9 
a-Tro TOU Oeov et? TTO\LV 7779 Yakukaias y ovofjia 

27 7T/)09 TrapOevov efJivrja-TeviAevyv dvBpl w ovo^a 

26. After an interval of six months 
Gabriel is again dispatched to earth 
to announce the coming birth of 
Jesus. He appears this time to the 
future mother. Throughout the 
infancy narratives of Luke the 
interest centres upon Mary. She 
plays the leading part and Joseph 
becomes a lay figure. This is in 
strong contrast with Matthew, where 
the angel appears to Joseph and 
Joseph throughout remains the chief 

27. e' OLKOV Aou>i7>]. The order of 
the words in the sentence forbids the 
interpretation of Origen who wished 
to attach l OLKOV Aai>ei5 to Trapdevov. 
Moreover, had this been intended, 
for TU 6Vo/xtt rrjs ira.ptfe.vov we must 

have read TO oVo/xa 
TTapOevov shews that the preceding 
words qualify dvSpi, and that with 
KO.L TO ovo/ia wo revert to the 
TrapOei'ov already mentioned. The 
interpretation of Chrysostom who 
wished to attach e' OLKOV Aou'e/'o* to 
both Joseph and Mary is equally 
impossible on grammatical grounds. 
It is Joseph who is of the house of 
David, and the claim of Jesus ' to 
sit upon the throne of his father 
David ' rests upon the Davidic 
descent of Joseph. This is also the 
presupposition of the genealogies 
both in Matthew and in Luke. 
Nothing is said directly of Mary's 
lineage, but since, according to 
Luke, she is a kinswoman of Eliza- 


Aauei'S, Kal TO ovofLa T/}<? irapOivov 
elcre\0<*)V irpos avrrjv eiirev Xatpe, 

beth, and Elizabeth was ' of the 
daughters of Aaron' (v. 5), it may 
probably be inferred that in this 
cycle of stories Mary too was of 
Levitic descent. Loisy conjectures 
that the sentence may originally 
have included a statement that 
Mary was 'of the daughters of 
Aaron,' which would have prepared 
the way for the statement of Gabriel 
in v. 36, and that this was sacrificed 
by a redactor who was conscious of 
the difficulty that if Mary was not 
of Davidic descent, and if Joseph 
was not the father, the Davidic 
descent of Jesus fell to the ground. 
Of course it might be supposed 
without inconsistency that Mary 
was in reality of Davidic descent 
on her father's side and was related 
to Elizabeth by her mother. The 
Davidic descent of Mary as well as 
of Joseph is asserted by syr.sin at 
ii. 4, 5 where the singular pronoun 
referring to Joseph is transformed 
into a plural : ' because both of 
them were of the house of David.' 
Similarly the Protev. Jocobi x. I 
makes Mary of Davidic descent, and 
this belief was widely held in the 
ancient Church. 

28. \aipe, Ke\apiTti)[Lti''>i] The 
angelic salutation to Mary was early 
expanded by an interpolation from 
v. 42 into the full form which is 
found in the Vulgate and the Textus 
Receptus. See critical note. There 
is a play on the Greek words X u 'Y )e 
and Kex<i/)tTWjuei'7/. X a '/' 'hail' 
(Lat. Have) is a Greek salutation. 
A Semite would say ' Peace to thee.' 
This is probably an indication that 
the narrative is not a mere repro- 
duction of an Aramaic source, but has 
been written apart in Greek. Gress- 
niann (in Klostcrmann), however, 




suggests that x a ^/ e ma y ^ e a literal 
translation of Aram. Hn ' rejoice,' 
not of Dp^. The meaning would then 
be ' Rejoice, thou blessed one, for 
the Lord is helping thee.' Grcss- 
mann holds that this gives a better 
introduction to Mary's uncertainty 
and doubt in the next verse. But 
the interpretation of x a */ ) as a sa ' u - 
tation is obvious in itself (cf. Mt. 
xxviii. 9), and makes a far more 
delicate opening to the dialogue than 
Gressmann's suggestion. 

Kex/HTO)/ii'r/] The verb occurs 
elsewhere in N.T. only Eph. i. 6 
O.VTOV (rov Oeov) ?}s 

The participle occurs in the Greek 
of Ecclus. of physical beauty (so 
some MSS. ix. 8, Swete a'pj/K/jou), and 
of moral excellence (xviii. 17). It is 
clear that the word here refers to 
grace of character, ' Thou who hast 
been highly favoured by God.' 

There are traces in ancient times 
of a view that the angel's utterance 
was itself the cause of the concep- 
tion. Pseudo-Athan. ei's rov em-yye- 
A7/iui> T/y<j i'irepayia<s OCOTOKOV ii. 
396E foil. ed. Bened. 1698 (quoted 
in Reitzenstein, Zicei Rdiyionsgesch. 
Fragen, p. 120) refers to and rejects 
the view that the voice of the arch- 
angel was itself the substance of the 
Divine Word. A similar view lies 
behind Sib. Orac. viii. 461 

/coA7T06s." I cos 

\a.fnv. Cf. also Protev. Jac. xi. 2 
iSov crvAAvy^v/ e/v Aoyou ai'Tor. This 
crude idea is not at all warranted 
by the Lucan text, as the futures in 
v. 35 c eAciVcTut, tVur/aacrei very 
clearly shew. 

o . Ki'ynos //era trov] Cf. Ju. vi. 12 



29 jjt,era GOV. ?; oe eVl ro> \oyfp $Lrapd%d'r) Kal 

30 7TOTa7ro9 elt] 6 cr7rao"yao9 ot/TO9. /cat etrrev o ayye\o^ 

31 Mr^ <j)o{3ov, Mapidfj,, evpes yap "^iioiv Trapa rw 0(0' Kal IBov 
<rv\\rf(i,Tfrr) ev yaarpl Kal re^y viov, Kal /caXe<jet9 TO ovo^a 

32 avrov ^Iriarovv. ovros ecrrat /j,eyas Kal U('o9 "Tifricrrov 
icKr]Or)<rerai ) Kal Scotret avrw Kvpios 6 Oeos TON GPO'NON A^veU 

33 TV TraT/309 avrov, KAI BACtAeycei eVl rov OLKOV 'la/foa/S 
eic TOYC &icoNAc> Kal T/^9 j3acri\ias avrov OVK e<rrat TeXo9. 

34 etTrej/ 8<f Mapta/u, 7T/D09 Toy ayye\,ov IIaj9 earat TOWTO, eVet 

28 Mf'a crou] add ev\oyrjnfvr] vv ev ywai^iv AGD al .latt syrr (vg.hl) boh (codd) 
Eus (dera 329) Tei't (virg vel 6) Protev Jac 1 1. I (codd pier) 5" otn XBLSi' 1-131 
565 700 aegg arm pal Protev Jac (codd) add praeterea KCU evXoyrjfj.ei'os 

o /capTTos TT?S KoeXtas crov 47 gat cf infra v. 42 34 irws . . . yivwffKU)] b ecco 

aucilla domiui contingat mihi secunduni verbum tnnni. cfad v. 38 

KCH t!)(j)8r) ai'rw (FtScwv) o ayycAos 
xvpiov Kal eiei/ TT/IOS avrov 
//.era o-oc. Ruth ii. 4 KOU 
(Boos) rots Btpi.{j)vvi Kvpios 

29. The maiden is disturbed at the 
angel's salutation. /"//] Note optat. 
in indirect question a characteristic 
feature of Lucan style. 

30. eSpes yap \dpiv] A Semitism, 
cf. Gen. vi. 8 Nwe 3e erpei/ \dpiv 
ci'(i.vTiov Kvpiov TOU ^eo?, and 

31. MU i't?ou cmAA^/z^ . . . 
'l7/fj-o{Ij'] Cf. Gen. xvi. n at (.iirtv 

J"l( \ IT- / 5t^\ \J 

avT'f) o ayyeAo? J\iyHou loou cru et" 
yatrrpl ex as Ka ' 
KuAaret 1 ? rt oVo/za cturou 
and Ju. xiii. 3, 5. Unlike Mt., 
Luke does not play on the etymo- 
logical meaning of the name Jesus. 
In Protev. Jac. xi. 2 the words from 
Mt. i. 21 are introduced at the 
corresponding place in the narrative 
of the Annunciation. 

32-33. Of John too it is said (v. 
15) that ' he shall be great,' but the 
role of Jesus is to be other than that 
of John, vlos l Y\//urTou K' 

Jacob, Jesus will be entitled 'Son 
of the Most High,' Ps. ii. 7, 2 Sam. 
vii. 14, Ps. Ixxxix. 26, 27. The 
angelic message is a direct reminis- 
cence of Is. ix. 6 f. o~t 7Ttti8iQi> 
eyevi/ry^T/ ry/<uj>, vtos ISoOrj r^ilv . . . 
7Tt T<>V Bpovov 
avrou . 


KCU et? ruv at'tui/a. 

As Davidic king of the house of 

34. 7T(os ccrrat TOUTO . . . yt.- 
VWO-KU ;] On the textual evidence 
for the omission of these words see 
Introd. supra. 

If Mary is already betrothed to 
Joseph, who is of the house of David, 
why should there be this difficulty 
or this particular hesitation in 
accepting the angel's prophecy ? 
This obvious difficulty has been mot 
in three ways: (i) It has been 
supposed that the angel's words 
were intended to indicate, and were 
understood by Mary to indicate, 
that the conception was to take 
place forthwith. This was the view of 
Cajetan : " non dixit non cognoscam 
sed non cognosce, quia intellexerat 
verba angeli tune implenda, dicente 
angelo Ecce concipics." So also 
Plummer (p. 24): "The words are 



dvSpa ov 

KOI aTrotcpiOels o ciyye\Q(; elvrev avrf] 3 5 
ayiov eTreXevcrerai, CTTL a~e, ical Suva/jus 

the avowal of a maiden conscious 
of her own purity ; and they are 
drawn from her by the strange 
declaration that she is to have a 
son before she is married." So also 
Reitzenstein, Gunkel. It was also 
probably the view of the evangelist 
that the conception did follow upon 
the Annunciation and Mary's re- 
sponse thereto. That, however, does 
not meet the point that the words 
of vv. 30, 31 do not themselves 
raise the idea of conception before 
marriage., or of themselves imply 
immediate conception. 

(2) The usual interpretation of 
Roman Catholic exegetes, whom 
Lagrange follows, is to- assign to 
the words e~et ai'Spa. ov yu'uxrKUj 
an absolute meaning, including the 
future as well as the past and 
present. Mary then expresses by 
the words the fact that she has 
formed an intention of remaining a 
virgin. Thus Mary's question to the 
angel is naturally occasioned by the 
intention which she has formed, and 
which she therewith declares. No 
doubt it is true -that, as Lagrange 
urges, a present tense can on occa- 
sion be used for a future as well as 
for a past, but it is not legitimate to 
extract the idea of an antecedent 
vow of perpetual virginity from these 
simple words. Moreover, we are 
then confronted with the question as 
to why Mary had become betrothed 
to Joseph. Lagrange answers : "We 
do not know, and to frame hypo- 
theses would be unprofitable enough. 
The simplest solution is to suppose 
that marriage with such a man as 
Joseph protected her from proposals 
incessantly renewed, and assured to 
her repose" (p. 33). How far in- 
deed have we travelled from the 

atmosphere of the narrative of the 
Annunciation ! 

(3) The true answer is that a 
narrative of this kind ought not to 
be subjected t6 the strain of such 
questions. The real purpose of") 
Mary's question to the angel is to/ 
give the writer an opening for the 
angel's prophecy as to how the con-/" 
ception is to come to pass. 

35. The child is to be conceived 
in the maiden under the direct 
operation of God's Spirit. Therefore 
the child will be indeed * Son of 
God,' not only in virtue of the 
kingly inheritance, which will entitle 
him to that designation (v. 32), but 
also because, in his very origin, he 
is sprung from God. 

The history of the exegesis of 
this verse (cf. Bardenhewer, ' Mariae 
Verkiindigung,' Biblische Stitdien, x. 
5, p. 132) is most illuminating for 
the history of doctrine. Justin (Apol? 
i. 33, Dial. c. Try ph. 105) interprets 
Tri/eiyxa uyiov and Si'i'uytus 'Y^itrr 
of the Logos, who is thus understood : 
to incarnate himself, so to speak, J 
in the Virgin's womb. This remains 
the dominant view until the fourth 
century, when, as the doctrine of the 
Holy Spirit becomes more clearly 
defined, there is a tendency to 
interpret the 8i'i'a/u<j of the Eternal 
Son and the 7ri'cP/xa uyiov of the 
Third Person in the Trinity. This 
remains the prevailing exegesis in the 
Middle Age and is maintained by 
John of Damascus and St. Thomas 
Aquinas. These later developments 
of doctrine must not be read into tho 
Gospel text. Tho idea of the pre- 
existent Son plays no part in this 
passage or elsewhere in tho synoptic 
Gospels. TheSpiritofCJoil means here, 
as in tho Old Testament, God's active 



eVtcr/aacret crot* Sib 

KCLL TO <yevv<Dfjivov A'CION KAHGHCGTAI, f<o? 
36 #eotr /cat tSoi> 'E\etcra/3eT i] a-vyyevk crov KOI avrrj arvv- 

35 TO 7'j'w/*ei'oi'] add CK <rov 0*0 1-22-131 33 124 a c e m Justin (?) 
Diat Valentt (ap Hipp) Dial Ephr (gk) Ath Diod Iren (lat) Tert J (al loc in te) om 
KABDL al b vg syr.hl aegg arm Petr.Al Eus codd ap Ephr (gk) Cyr Tert Cypr 

power. The evangelist is concerned 
with the origin of Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God, and he teaches that he 
came by the operation of God's 
Spirit u pon the Virgin Mary. Tri/efyux 
aytov and 6Y'i'//is r Y\^um>v are not 
to be distinguished. The two clauses, 
as Maldonatus recognised, are two 
parallel statements of the same thing 
in accordance with the idiom of 
Hebrew poetry. The ' overshadowing ' 
of the Holy Spirit is the counterpart 
to avopa ov yivwarKM above. 7rt- 
a-Ktdfav is to be understood of a local 
overshadowing of the divine power. 
In Ex. xl. 29 it is used of the over- 
shadowing of the cloud of the divine 
Presence. So also again in the 
narrative of the Transfiguration (Lk. 
ix. 34 with note ad loc. and parallels). 
Norden, however (Die Geburt des 
Kindes, p. 92), following Leisegang, 
Pneuma Hagion, looks to Philonic 
texts and Philonic doctrine to illus- 
trate the usage of the word in this 
verse. The darkening of the reason 
(O-KOTOS TOU Aoyw/xov), Philo teaches, 
brings about an ecstasy of the soul. 
But in the actual passage which 
Norden adduces, the use of eVur/au- 
(.iv (a not uncommon word in Philo) 
is quite different from that in the 
Gospel text. In Quod Deus Immut. 
i. p. 273 M., commenting on Gen. vi. 
4 (the intercourse of the angels with 
the daughters of men), Philo sa}'S that 
so long as there shine in the soul 
the pure rays of wisdom by which 
the wise man sees God and his 
powers the false angels are impotent, 
but when the h'ght of the under- 
standing, being dulled, is darkened 




), then the companions 
of darkness are able to hold inter- 
course with the passions (spoken of 
in Scripture as ' the daughters of 
men') and beget themselves offspring. 
Apart from the fact that this passage 
is concerned with evil spirits, the 
verb eVio-/aueu' itself is there used 
in the passive to describe a quasi- 
negative condition of the Sidvoia. 
It is not used of the spirits whose 
activity is described in quite other 
terms. In Luke, on the other hand, 
the verb describes what may be 
spoken of as the active ' overshadow- 
ing ' of the divine Spirit. 

6 to KUI TO yfi'vi'tfjitvov . . . I'tos 
Ofov] The construction of this sen- 
tence is obscure. To take aytov as 
attribute to TU yevvtuficvov is scarcely 
possible. With the punctuation of 
VV.H. vtos 0(.ov must be taken as an 
extension of the predicate : " where- 
fore the child shall be called holy, 
Son of God." This is perhaps best, 
in spite of the difficulty that wos 
6f.ov is not an extension of the idea 
expressed by <ly to v. The alternative 
is to punctuate after ayioi' and 
supply rrui: "wherefore also the 
child shall be holy, he shall be called 
Son of God." TO yu'i'oj/zei'ot/, 'that 
which shall be begotten,' referring 
back to the previous sentence ; cf . 
Mt. i. 20 TO ey airn/ ytvin/Oti'. 

36. The angel authenticates his 
message by telling Mary that a similar 
though less stupendous event has 
already befallen her kinswoman 
Elizabeth. >} o-uyyei'j's croc] This is 
the only passage in the Gospels which 
tells of a relatio'nship between the 
families of Jesus and the Baptist. 



vlov ev yrjpei avTrjs, KCU OVTOS (Jbrjv e/cro? earlv 

Trj Trj Ka\ovfjLevrj areipa' on OYK AAYNATHCGI n&pdl TOY QGOY 37 
TTN PHMA. elirev 8e MaptdjJ, *\&ov rj Sov^rj Kvpiov' yevoiTo 38 
Kara TO pijfjud crov. KOL airrfKOev air avri^ 6 

38 enrev de . . 

37. A slight modification of God's 
words to Abraham, Gen. xviii. 14 p) 
dSi'i'uTet irapa rep #eu> />v)/xu ; oi' . . . 
True] A Semitism for 'nothing.' />////a 
here as in Gen. represents "IIH 
' thing about which one speaks,' ' an 
affair,' ' a thing.' 

prjwa (rou oin be 

38. Mary humbly accepts the lot 
which has been appointed for her. 
The actual fulfilment of the prophecy 
of v. 35 must be supposed to follow 
after the departure of the angel. 
But in this case we have no counter- 
part in narrative to v. 24. 


The future mother of the Christ child visits her kinswoman who is to be 
the mother of the Christ's forerunner. The future relations of John and 
Jesus are foreshadowed in the older woman's greeting to Mary, arid Elizabeth's 
unborn babe shews himself conscious of the presence of the mother of his 

The scene links together the two stories of Annunciation which have pre- 
ceded, and prepares the way for the two birth narratives which are to follow. 

a -a Be Mapia/u, ev rats f)fjLepai<i ravraif 39 
et9 trr)V opLv-qv yttera airovbris ei? iroXiv 'lovSa, 
KOI elarfkOev et9 TOV olicov Za^apuou KOI rjcrirdo-aTO rrjv 40 
EXe4<7a/3eT. KCU eyevero, eo? iJKOva'ev TOV afffraa^ov T?)? 4 1 
Ma/>ta<? r) ' EA,etcm/3eT, 


ev TTJ Koi\ia 

39. Mary goes to her kinswoman 
Elizabeth to satisfy herself of the 
truth of the angel's words (v. 36). 
/zera o-TrovS?}*] With the zeal and 
haste which a sign divinely' vouch- 
safed called for. e<' iroXiv 'loj'Srx] 
'to a city, of Judah.' Cf. 2 Regn. 
ii. i c/'s iu'uv Twi' 7ro/\0)i/ 'Icn'Su. It 
is useless to try to guess the name of 
the city and unnecessary to suppose 
that a name has fallen out. 

41. i(TKi,pTyj(Ttv TO /^)e'</>os] Cf. 

the movement of the unborn babe 
foreshadows the future lot of tLe 
child. S.B. ii. p. 101 quote a similar 
motif from Sota 5. 20 c. 14, where 
Rabban Gamaliel (c. A. D. 90) deduces 
from the Hebrew text of Ps. Ixviii. 
27 that the unborn embryos sang a 
song of praise at the crossing of the 
Red Sea. The movement of the 
prophetic child is perhaps thought 
of as the occasion of Elizabeth's 
inspiration. The welcome to Mary 

Gen. xxv. 22 arKi'priov Be. ra -u/Sta^ on the part of the unborn babe 
tv ai'ri;. Here, as in Gen. xxv. (of reveals to Elizabeth that Mary is to 
Rebecca's children), the idea is that be the mother of her Lord. Cf. v. 44. 



42 avr??, Kal eTT^tjcrOr] Trvevp.aTos dyiov 77 'EA,etcra/3er, KOI 
dve^x^vrjcrev fcpawyfj f^eyd\rj Kal eiTrev ^vXoyrj/aevr} crv ev 

43 yvvattfLV, Kal evXoyrjfjievos 6 KapTros TT)? KoCXias aov. Kal 
TroOev fJLOi TOVTO 'iva e\9rj i] /UT/TT^? TOV Kvpiov JULOV 7rpo<> HJJLC ; 

44 t8ou yap co<? eyevero i] (frcovrj TOV d(T7rao~fj,ov <rov et? ra wra 
IJLOV, e<TKlpTij<rev ev dyaXKidaei TO (Bpefyo? ev Trj Koikia JJLOV. 

45 Kal fjiaicapla rj Trio-Tevcraa-a OTL ecrra-t reX-eiwo-t? rot? \e\a\t)- 

46 JJLGVOLS avTy Trapa Kvpiov. Kal el'jrev ^ 

46 HapiatJ,] EXficra/3er a b 1* Iren (lat) | codd ap Orig (lat) Horn in Luc Nicet. 

MSS. and almost all versions, the 
conclusion should probably be drawn 
that Mapiu//, is not original. Harnack 
(followed by Blass, Loisy, and others) 
holds (Sitz.-Ber. d. preuss. Akad. 
d. Wiss., 1900, pp. 538 f.) that the 
original reading was simply /cat enref , 
that the names Mapta/j and 'EAeura- 
/Jer were variously added to make 
the subject explicit, and that the true 
interpretation of the original text is 
to supply 'EAtio-a^tT. Elizabeth's 
position does, and Mary's does not, 
resemble the position of the long 
childless Hannah in I Regn. i., ii., 
whose song the Magnificat so closely 
follows. Moreover, Elizabeth's situa- 
tion in conceiving in her old age 
supplies a fuller meaning for the 
TaTreii/wo-/.? of v. 48 than the word 
receives if .Mary be the speaker. 
Also the parallel with the Benedictus 
becomes closer. The two canticles 
are then assigned to the two aged 
parents of the Baptist, both of whom 
are related " to have been filled with 
the Holy Ghost " (vv. 41, 67). Lastly, 
the wording of v. 56 supports the 
view that 'EAao-a/^er is the true 
subject of ftrrei/ in v. 46. If the 
subject of '<i^eLV(.v was the same as 
the subject of tlirtv, we should not 
expect the name Mu/W/* to be 
repeated, while Elizabeth is referred 
to by a pronoun (<ri<v avry). If, 
however, there has been a 

42. ei/oy^/xei'OS o Ka.piros Kr. 
We may probably infer from this 
that Luke thinks of the conception 
as having already taken place. 

43. Elizabeth feels herself to be 
unworthy to receive a visit from the 
mother of the Messiah. Cf. 2 Regn. 
xxiv. 21 (Oman to David) ri 
TJXBev o Ki'yotos jJiov 6 /^acrtAet' 

TO* Sot-Aoj/ aijroi)/ 

44. i'8ov y<ip] Elizabeth explains 
how it is that she is able to recog- 
nise in Mary ' the mother of her 
Lord.' The babe had recognised 
her, and Elizabeth knew the truth 
from the babe's movement of joy. 

45. It is not easy to decide 
whether on should be taken to 
mean ' that,' in which case the 
following clause explains the con- 
tent of what Mary believed, or 
whether it means ' because,' in which 
case the following clause gives the 
ground for Mary's blessedness. The 
latter is perhaps to be preferred. 

46. /cut eiVfi/ Mapia/jJ] The read- 
ing 'EAarra/^er for Mapia/x attested 
by Old Latin texts, Irenaeus iv. 12 
Harvey (so best MSS.) (contrast Iren. 
iii. n), Niceta of Remesiana, and 
MSS. referred to by Jerome (or 
Origen) in the Latin trans, of Origen's 
yth Homily on Luke, is hard to 
account for as a correction or corrup- 
tion of an original Ma/na/i, and in 
spite of the support of all Greek 






TO TTvev/JLa. /Jbov en! Tt<S 6etS TCP corrfipf Moy 47 
on eneBAefeN eni TIHN T&neiNoociN THC AOY'AHC AY'TOY, 48 

l$ov yap anro rov vvv p,aKapt,Qvo~iv /u,e Traarai at yevear 

on e'Troi'rjcrev pou 

teal i'noN TO ONOMA 
KOL TO eAeoc AYTOY eic 

ToTc (J>oBoYMeNOic 

o Swaros, 

' Kpros GN 



5 * 


AYNA'CTAC a?ro Qoovwv KCLI yV^ceN TAneiNOY'c, 5^ 

eNerrAHceN ^rA0u>N Aral TTAOYTOYNTAC e'S&ne'cTeiAeN 53 


of subject at v. 56, both ]\Iaptu/x 
and the pronoun vr t // are what 
we should expect. These arguments 
are weighty, and they are not 
counterbalanced by the arguments 
that the reference to the inspiration 
of Elizabeth in v. 41 is sufficiently 
explained by the exclamation in 
v. 42, and that the words of 48 b, 
though natural when placed in the 
mouth of Mary, are an over-state- 
ment when ascribed to Elizabeth, 
cf. v. 48 n. We may notice that if 
the original text omitted the subject, 
we have an exact parallel to Hannah's 
song in i Regn. ii. i, which is prefaced 
by the words /cat eorev. 

46 f. The first half of the canticle 
expresses the personal thankfulness 
of the speaker. In the second half 
we pass over from the thought of 
God as crwrip of the individual to 
God as saviour of Israel from her 
haughty oppressors. In this general 
character, as well as in detail, it 
closely resembles the song of Hannah, 
Elizabeth takes her place as an in- 
spired prophetess with the holy women 
of old Miriam, Deborah, Hannah. 

j" 01 ' T " 

The two words are here interchange- 
able in meaning. 

48. ort etre/JXe^ev . . . rrjs (W- 
Ar/<j avrov] If these words are placed 
in the mouth of Elizabeth, the 
TaTreu'wo-is refers to her childlessness 
(cf. oVetSo? v. 25) and is a direct" 
echo of I Regn. i. II (of Hannah), 
eav ^Trt/^AeTrui' eVi/^Ae^s rrjv ra- 
Tretvaxriv Trjs &o/>A?7S crov. So also 
Gen. xvi. n (of Hagar), xxix. 32 
(of Lea). The word can also be 
used with a more general connota- 
tion, e.g. I Regn. ix. 16; 2 Regn. 
xvi. 12 ; 4 Regn. xiv. 26 ; Ps. ix. 14, 
xxiv. 18; but it regularly suggests 
positive humiliation and distress. 
This is very appropriate to Elizabeth, 
but not to Mary. 

iSov yap . . . yeveat] Closely 
parallel to the words of Lea in Gen. 
xxx. 13 (see Additional Note) and 
in no way out of place in the mouth 
of Elizabeth. 

51-55- God's redemption of Israel, 
regarded as already achieved, is 
described in language which is taken 
almost entirely from O.T. sources. 
See, Additional Note, pp. 303 f. 

53- eu7TccrTiAei' KCVOVS] The two 



5 5 K&9ojc e\d\r)crV npoc joyc 
5 ABpA<x/v\ /cat TCJJ 

56 " 




rpet?, /rat I/TT- 

Se Mapta/it <ri;z/ 
et? TOZ> QLK.OV avTfjs. 
5 7 Tr? 8e EXeto"a/3eT tVX^cr^?; o %povo<; rov reKelv avTt'jv, 

58 ACCU eyevvrjcrev vlov. Kal tficovcrav 01 trepioLKOL KOL 01 avy- 
yeveLS awr/y? ort efjieyd\vvev Kupto? TO eXeo? avrov yaer' 

59 ai>Tr)s, KOL avve^aipov avrrj. Kat e^ez/ero e^ T^ il/^epq rtf 

078077 Tj\OaV 7TpiT6fMiv TO TTttfcSlW, /tat eKa\OVV dVTO 7TL 

TOU 7raT/)o9 avTov Za^aplav Kal a 

56 aw auri?] by Elizabeth syrr. 

60 Tc3 

words recur in juxtaposition in Lk. 
xx. 10 and n. 

55. Tip J A/2/)Utt/A . . . 1? TO I/ 

at(?n'a] To be taken as virtually in 
apposition to 7r/)ns TOTS ware pas 
IIILMV in the preceding verse, in spite 
of the change of case. This accords 
better with the simple syntactical 
structure of the canticle than to 
regard KU^WS . . . iru-repas i)/zwi/ as 
parenthesis, and to construct TU 
as dativus commodi with 

56. Mary returns to her home 
before the birth of Elizabeth's child. 
There is nothing to shew whether 
Luke thinks of Mary's home as the 
home of her parents or the home of 
Joseph. At the time of the birth 
of her child Mary is living with 
Joseph, but the evangelist passes 
over the circumstances of their 
coming together. 

57-66. The Birth of John the 

57. Cf. Gen. xxv. 24 
pi')6i]crav at ly^e/jat TO? 

58. Elizabeth had remained in re- 

tirement (v. 24), and her neighbours 
and kinsfolk (other than Mary, who 
had been told by the angel) remained 
in ignorance of her condition until 
the birth of the child. 

59. In the O.T. the name is 
regularly bestowed at birth. There 
appears to be no other evidence of 
a Jewish custom of giving the name 
at circumcision, at any rate until a 
very much later date (eighth cent. 
A.D.). See Klostermann and S.B. 
ad loc. Gressmann and J. Weiss 
suspect that Luke has been influenced 
by the Greek custom according to 
which infants were named on the 
seventh or tenth day after birth. 
Examples of naming after the father 
are given by S.B. (ii. p. 107) from 
the Talmud, and cf. also Jos. Ant. 
xx. 9. I ; B.J. v. 13. 2. A more 
frequent custom was to name after 
the grandfather. 

60. We must suppose that the 
name was communicated to Elizabeth 
by divine inspiration, and that 
Zacharias then confirms what is said 
on the authority of the angelic 
annunciation. The story loses all 



avrov eiTrev 



%i, d\\d K\t]6rjo~erai, 

QvBel? O~TLV K TV}? O~Vy- 6 I 

aov o? KoKelrai r< ovopan TOVTM. evevevov Be 62 
O* Trarpi avrov TO ri av OeKoi Ka\elo~9at, avro. Kal alrr\- 63 
era? irivaKiSiov eypa^rev \eywv 'Iwdvrjs eo~rlv ovop,a avrov 
l edavuao-av Tuivres. uvey^d'rj Be ro crro/^a avrov irapa- 64 

/cal rj 'yXwcrcra avrov, Kal eXaA-et evXoywv rov Oeov. 
Kal eyevero errl Trdvras ^>o/3o9 TOW? rrepioiKOvvras av- 6$ 
TOU?, Kal ev o\y rrj opLvrj T/}? 'lovSaia? SteXaXetro rrdvra 
ra prjfjLara ravra, Kal eOevro rravres 01 aKovcravre? ev ry 66 
KapBia avrwv, \e<yovre<$ Tl apa ro rra&iov rovro ecrrat; Kal 
yap %et/? Kvplov r)V yuer' avrov. Kat Za^ap/a? o Trarijp 67 

avrov e7rX?7<7077 rcvevp^aro^ dyiov Kal eTrpocfrrjrevo'ev \eywv 


Kypioc 6 Qeoc TO? 'Icp&riA, 
or i errecrKe^raro Kal eTro'irjo-ev AY'TRWCIN TCP 

point if we imagine that Elizabeth 
and Zacharias had arranged the 
matter previously. 

62. eVei'ei'oi/ Se TCO -jrarpl auroi 1 ] 
Zacharias, therefore, must be thought 
of as deaf as well as dumb : " a 
false trait which would readily occur 
in a popular story " (J. Weiss). 
Note the Lucan optat. (with u.v) in 
indirect question. Cf. Ac. x. 17, 
Lk. ix. 46, xv. 26, xviii. 36 (D). 
Cf. Blass, 66. 3, and for the article 
before indirect question (rare in N.T. 
except Lk.), Blass, 47. 5, and Introd. 
p. Ixxxii. ci/i/ci'w here only in N.T. 
Found in Aristoph. and Lucian. 

63. Kal atT7/(ru.] 6/xouos Sid vei'- 
/XO.TOS Euthymius. 

Ae'-j/wi'] Not 'and said,' which of 
course would anticipate the miracle 
of the next verse, but, like the Heb. 
"fcw, 'he wrote to say.' Cf. 4 
Regn. x. 6 /cut eypa^ev Tiyjos 
pi/JAi'oi/ Sevrepov Aeycor. 

I(oai/7/s O"rti/ oi'0/j.a avTor] 
not co-rat. The present is emphatic. 
The name is already fixed. 

KUI fOavfifurav TTUI/TCS] i.e. at the 
miraculous agreement between what 
Elizabeth had said- and what the 
deaf mute Zacharias had written. 

64. The period set by the angel 
for the dumbness of Zacharias (v. 20) 
is now fulfilled. 

Kal rj yAwo-cra ai'ror] A zeugma 
with (TToaa ai'ecox#??. Western texts 
(D lat.vt syr.sin) supply eAt'^?;. 

65. SteAaAerro] In Greek Bible 
only here and vi. u. Freq. in Jos. 
and Polyb. 

rd /jry/xara rajjra] ' these events.' 

Heb. Dnn-i. 

66. Wtvro tv ry /ca/>5ta] Hebraism. 
Cf. I Regn. xxi. 12 /cat e'#ero AuueiS 
rd ptjuara eV ry Kap8ia. ai'roP. 

Xa/) Kv/noi'] An O.T. phrase 
peculiar to Lk. in the N.T. Cf. 
Ac. xi. 21, xiii. n. 

67. The Bene&ictus, like the Mag- 
nificat, is very loosely appended to 
the narrative. 

68-69. A blessing to Cod for the 
redemption which he has brought to 
his people by raising up a leader in 



69 Kal HpeipeN Ke'p&c 



70 Kada><> e\d\r)crev Std crrofJiaTO^ rwv dyicov air aiwz/o? 


71 COOTHP(AN e5 eyeptoN HMCON KAI GK \eipoc iravrutv TCON MICOY'N- 


72 Troifjo'ai eAeoc MGTA TWN n^repcoN HMCON 

/Cat MNHCGHNcM AlA0HKHC dyia<} AYTOf, 


74 TOU Bovvat rjfjLtv a<o/3a>9 e: ^eipbf e%0p 

75 ^-ciTpevetv avT(p ev oaiorijTi KOI SiKcuocrvwrj 

avrov irdcrais ra?9 

76 Kal ffv Be, TTCLIOIOV, Trpo^rjTT)^ "TtyicrTov K! 

"TrpoTTopevcrrj yap eNobnioN KYP^OY GTOIMA'CAI oAo^c 

77 r v Bovvat, ryvwcnv o-c&Trjpias TO> \a<j> avTov 

i?i/ r ^ > 


the relative 6V governed by w/ 
Cf. xx. 17. 

73-75. The promise to Abraham is 
interpreted in a broad and spiritual- 
ised sense: not the gift of the 
promised land, but the gift of deliver- 
ance from foes for continual service 
of God. The language here again 
deserts O.T. precedent. The accumu- 
lation of infinitives, with a participle 
in agreement with the subject of the 
second infinitive, does not read like 
translation from a Semitic source. 
The evangelist's own hand may be 
suspected. For the construction 
Sovvcu JJ/JLLV . . . AaT/xi'eti/ cf. 
Ac. iv. 29 Sbs rots SowAois <rov . . . 

the house of David. This is the 
ancient Messianic hope of national 
salvation associated with the Davidic 
dynasty, and it links up with the 
angel's annunciation to Mary, v. 32. 

70. A direct reference to the pro- 
phetic promises of the O.T. It is 
to be noted that when the canticle, 
as here, ceases to be a direct echo of 
O.T. language, characteristic Lucan 
phraseology appears. Acts iii. 21 
gives an almost exact equivalent 
for this verse: toi/ eAa/X^trej/ 6 
#eos Sttt crroyaaros TIV ayi'toi/ air 
cuaivos GU'TOU Trpo<l>r)TiuV. Cf. also 
Ac. iii. 1 8. 

71. crojT?;/?t'ttv] In apposition, pos- 
sibly to Kepas crioT7]piu<s, or better to 
the whole of the preceding v. 70. 
The salvation is what God promised 
through the prophets. 

73- opKov ov oi/xotrev] upxov should 
be in apposition to Siu#?/Kr;s, but it 
has been attracted into the case of 

76. "And thou, my child, shalt 
be called prophet of the Most High." 
To be compared with v. 32 (of Jesus) 

77. ro SofWt yvwTiv <ra)T>y/Hs] 
The role of the Baptist is to make 

I. 80] 


8eov ? 




To e TratSiW vjv^ave KOL ercparaiovTO Trvev/jLan, KOI fy So 

TOV KarevQvvaL Toi/9 vroSa? ijjiwv et? oSof 


avrov irps TOV 

78 firiaKf\f/fTo.i pap 4 K*B(L)WG syrr ( aegg arm go: etreuKf^aro ACD 
al latt syr.hl aeth Iren(lat) 5" 

known to the people the salvation 
to come by preaching the remission 
of sins. The Baptist came /ojpiV- 
inov j3(iTrrnr[ifi. />UTai/oia<j c. iii. Or 
perhaps, if the hymn is composed 
by a Christian with a Christian 
perspective, ev d^tVet should be 
connected closely with o-omi/sius: 
"knowledge of the salvation which 
consists in remission of sins." Cf. 
xxiv. 47. 
78. 3m 

KT\.] There is a direct echo of these 
words in Test. XI I. Pair. Levi iv. 

U>S 7rtCTK1/'/Tttl Kl'/)lO9 TTfU'TU TIL 

f.0\ni i> cTTrAdy^i'Dis VIOD ai'Toi* ecus 

Iv ofs 7rtfrKti/'T(jt(] With the read- 
ing 7Tf<rK^aTo we revert to the 
' eschatological * form of prophecy 
of the first verses (cf. Addit. Note). 
The future ITTUTK^ITIU is better 
attested and suits the context 

di/aroAvy] 'the dawn ' or 'the rising 
sun,' used as a metaphor for the 
Messianic redemption or for the 
Messiah. Cf. Mai. iv. 2 di'ureAa rjAios SiKatowvi'ijs. That this 
is the true meaning of the word 
here seems plainly indicated by the 
metaphors of light and darkness in 
the next verse. Nevertheless the 
interpretation of ' i'i/oi.'s is not 
easy. The rising sun does not shine 
' from on high ' ; we must interpret 

of the sun which rises and mounts 
on high, rather than of the dawn 
itself. S.B. favour the suggestion 
that the use of dvaroXrj here depends 
upon the LXX of Jer. xxiii. 5, Zech. 
iii. 8, vi. 12, where the word stands 
for ' the sprout ' of the tree of Jesse, 
i.e. the Davidic king. But l i'j/-oi"j 
becomes even harder on this inter- 
pretation, and the metaphors of light 
and darkness in v. 78 lose their 
appropriateness. J. Weiss thinks, 
that the author of the Psalm took 
over the Messianic term uraroA;/ 
(intended originally in the sense of 
Jer. xxiii.) without understanding 
it, and himself interpreted it of the 
rising light of sun or star. He may 
then himself have introduced the 
words v\l/m"5. A further sugges- 
tion by J. Weiss is ingenious, but 
perhaps hardly probable : he thinks 
that di-TO AT) e v^ons ' the [Davidic] 
sprout from on high ' may have been 
a recognised term for the heavenly 
Messiah (conceived after the manner 
of the figure in Dan. vii.) in contrast 
with the conception of an earthly 
Messianic king. 

80. The narrative concerning the 
birth of John tbe Baptist closes with 
a summary notice of his growth and 
life similar to that in Ju. xiii. 24 
(of Samson) and I Regn. ii. 26 (of 
Samuel). See also below, ii. 40, 52, 
of Jesus. 


THE BIRTH OP JESUS (ii. 1-20) 

A beautiful pastoral narrative. Joseph, accompanied by Mary, journeys 
to Bethlehem, the city of David, on the occasion of an imperial enrolment. 
While they are there Mary's son is born, and as there is no room in the inn 
he is laid in a manger. Meantime the birth of the infant Saviour in David's 
city is proclaimed to shepherds by an angel, who directs them to the manger- 
cradle in Bethlehem. The heavenly host is heard declaring praise to God 
and peace among men. The shepherds find Mary, Joseph, and the babe, and 
make known what had been declared to them. 

Formidable difficulties are encountered if it is supposed that we have here 
a record of actual happenings vouched for by those who took part in them. 
For a full discussion of the problems raised by the supposed census of the 
nativity see Schiirer, G. J. V. i. 4 pp. 508 f . The following are the chief points : 

(1) Nothing is known of a general census under Augustus. Luke has 
probably wrongly generalised from a local provincial census. Cf. the some- 
what similar misstatement concerning the famine, Acts xi. 28. 

(2) Josephus (Ant. xvii. 13. 5 ; xviii. i. i) tells of a census conducted by 
Quirinius, governor of Syria, with Coponius, procurator of Judaea. Josephus 
speaks of this as an innovation which was widely resented and led to the 
rising of the Zealots under Judas of Galilee. This is the diroypafo'i referred 
to in Acts v. 37, and it is probably the same U7roypa<>; which is here in mind. 
It occurred after the deposition of Archelaus, when, for the first time, Palestine 
came under direct Roman government, A.D. 6 or 7, i.e. some ten years later 
than ' the days of Herod the king ' (Lk. i. 5 ; Mt. ii. i). 

(3) A Roman census under Herod, who was an allied king, was impossible. 

(4) A Roman census was based on residence, and did not require a man to 
report to his ancestral city. It has been suggested that such a method may 
have been adopted as a concession to Jewish prejudice. But it is very 
doubtful if it would have been practicable. 

These considerations point to the conclusion that Luke has transposed the 
well-known census of Quirinius to a date some ten or eleven years before it 
actually took place, overlooking the circumstance that a Roman census of 
Palestine under the auspices of the imperial legatus of Syria would not be 
possible while Herod was king (so Schurer, Holtzmann, J. Weiss, Ed. Meyer, 
Loisy). Luke's history is not always dependable. There can be little doubt 
that in his account of Gamaliel's speech in Acts v. he has wrongly dated the 
rising of Theudas, which in point of fact did not take place until after the 


time at which Gamaliel is supposed to speak. 1 It is not unreasonable to 
suspect a similar error here. 

Inaccuracy of some kind is widely acknowledged, but various attempts 
have been made to fit in the account of Lk. ii. with the other evidence. Thus 
it has been proposed to translate TT/HUT^ ' before,' and make it govern 
7/ye/zoi/ei'oi/Tos TTJ<S ~v/oias Kiyriji/iov. This translation would make Luke 
himself distinguish the census of the nativity from the census of Quirinius. 
But the translation does violence to the language and yields a very poor 
sense. Cf. note ad loc. 

Ramsay 2 argues that the Lucan account is accurate throughout. There 
is evidence which indicates that Quirinius twice held office in Syria, and, on 
the evidence of a recently discovered inscription which refers to a prefect of 
Quirinius (op. cit. p. 285), Ramsay comes to the conclusion that Quirinius 
held office as legatus in Syria for the first time from 11/10-8/7 B.C. Now 
Tertullian dates the census of the nativity, not under Quirinius, but under 
Sentius Saturninus (Adv. Marcion. iv. 19). Saturninus, we know from 
Josephus, held office as' legatus of Syria from 9-6 B.C. Ramsay accepts 
Tertullian's statement, and thinks it probable that Quirinius and Saturninus 
were for some time in office together with different spheres of action (op. cit. 
p. 293). He therefore proposes to throw back the date of the nativity to 
about the year 8 B.C., and, on the authority of Luke, supported by the state- 
ment of Tertullian, postulates a universal census of the empire for that time 
(op. cit. p. 243). 

The objection remains that if such a census was held in Palestine in 
the days of Herod, it is remarkable that Josephus makes no mention of it, 
especially as we should expect that it would have called forth the same 
popular indignation which we know was aroused by the census of Quirinius in 
A.D. 6/7. Moreover we must assume that Josephus was in error when he 
speaks of the later census as though it were an innovation. 

A further objection to postulating a universal census at about the year 
8 B.C. has recently come to light through the discovery of inscriptions, dated 
7/6 B.C., at Gyrene in Africa, which contain imperial rescripts dealing with 
the composition of juries in the province of Gyrene. It is clear from these 
inscriptions that whereas the imperial government was in possession of 
lists of Roman citizens in Gyrene, they did not possess statistics with regard 

1 According to Jos. Ant. xx. 5. I, the rising of Theudas took place under the 
procuratorship of Fadus, i.e. about A.D. 45. 

2 The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 
PP- 238 f. 


to the Greek inhabitants of the city. These inscriptions therefore provide 
a formidable argumenlurn e silentio against the supposition that a general 
enrolment of the Empire had been undertaken at the date which Ramsay 
proposes. 1 

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Luke has made a historical 
mistake. None the less we may recognise a true idea in the narrative as it 
stands an idea to which the evangelist was not indifferent. The birth of 
Christ roughly coincided with the establishment of an ordered government 
and administration throughout the world. The Roman Empire provided the 
conditions, which enabled the new faith to establish itself as a world-wide 
Church. If there is chronological error, there is also dramatic appropriateness 
in associating the birth of the Christ with an imperial decree for the enrolment 
of ' all the world.' 

The internal evidence of the Gospels raises difficulties of another kind. If 
in actual fact Mary had been prepared beforehand for the future of her son, 
it seems strange that she and his brethren should be represented in the earliest 
Gospel (Mk. iii. 21, 31) as attempting to restrain him from his public work in 
the belief that ' he was beside himself.' 

If we may not look for the origin of the story in actual reminiscence, it 
is natural to enquire into possible antecedents in popular belief, folk-lore, 
or literature which may have contributed to the story as we have it. An 
ingenious but highly speculative theory as to the origin of the story was 
propounded by Gressmann (Das Weihnachtsevangelium, 1914). Gressmann 
finds incoherences in the Gospel narrative as it stands. Following Eichorn 
he thinks that the child's manger-cradle ought to stand in direct relation with 
the shepherds, whereas in point of fact the connexion is not established in the 
story. It is the parents, not the shepherds, who lay the child in the manger. 
The shepherds only find him there in accordance with the angel's words. 
Moreover the shepherds themselves, he argues, are really superfluous to the 
story as it stands. He is disposed, therefore, to conjecture an earlier form of 
the story in which shepherds discover a foundling child in their own manger 
and are told by an angelic voice that this child is the promised Messiah. This 
pre-Christian story may be supposed to have come into Judaism from Egypt. 
Plutarch (De Is. et Osir. 12, p. 355 e) relates two versions of the story of the 
birth of Osiris. One is that when Osiris was born a divine voice was heard 
proclaiming " The Lord of all comes forth to light." But according to 

1 Cf. A. von Premerstein in Zeitschr. d. Savigny Sti/tung, Romanist. Ableil. 
xlviii. (1928), pp. 448 f. 


another version, a certain Pamyles in Egyptian Thebes was drawing water 
from the Temple of Zeus, and, while there, he heard a voice which bade him 
cry aloud that " the great king, the benefactor, Osiris is born " ; thereupon 
Cronos entrusted the child to his care, and he reared it. Gressmann interprets 
Plutarch's account to mean that Pamyles discovered the infant Osiris in the 
Temple as a foundling. This legend, he thinks, passed over into Judaism, 
where it became a legend of the finding of the child Messiah, and in this 
form was subsequently attached to Jesus. But Jesus being a child of real 
human parents, the legend became disjointed. Mary and Joseph displace 
the shepherds at the manger, while the shepherds still receive the angelic 
message, though they become in truth otiose figures in the story. 

Gressmann's theory has been vigorously criticised by Clemen. 1 (i) It is 

by no means clear from Plutarch or elsewhere that Osiris was ever regarded 
as a foundling child. (2) Nothing is known of a pre-Christian Jewish legend 
of the Messiah as a foundling child, such as Gressmann postulates. (3) Nor . 
again is it clear that the Lucan story as it stands is so incoherent as Gressmann 
thinks. The shepherds are by no means superfluous to the narrative : their 
finding of the child in the manger leads on naturally and directly to the state- 
ment that they made known the good news which had been told to them. 
Thus the shepherds are the vouchers for the story. The theme of the heavenly 
voice at the birth common to Luke and to Plutarch's legend is too natural to 
call for a theory, of direct dependence. 

Shepherds are found associated in legend with the birth and childhood of 
Cyrus, of Romulus and Remus, and also of Mithras. 2 Geffcken 3 argues for a 
derivation of the motif of the shepherds ultimately from Mithraism by way 
of Posidonius, but his argument appears to be inconclusive. 4 It is best to 
look for sources near at hand. It is clear that a dominant theme in the 
narrative is the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, the city of David. David 
himself was a shepherd, and a pastoral scene is fully in harmony with the Old 
Testament associations of Bethlehem. We may perhaps go further. At 
Bethlehem there was ' a tower of flocks ' (Gen. xxxv. 21), and in Micah iv. 8 
the ' tower of the flocks ' is associated with ' the kingdom of the daughter of 
Jerusalem.' The text from Micah appears to have been brought into 
connexion with the ' tower of the flocks ' in Genesis, x for the Palestinian 

1 Studien u. Kriliken, 1916, pp. 237 f. ; Rdigionsqesch. Erklarung d. N.T. 
pp. 203 f. 

2 Cf. Cumont, Texles et monuments rdatifs aux mystcres de Milhm, i. p. 162. 

3 'Die Hit-ten auf clem Fclde/ Hermes, 1914, pp. 321-351. 

4 Cf. Clemen, op. cit. pp. 203 f. 


Targum on Gen. xxxv. 21 writes * : " And Jacob proceeded and spread his 
tent beyond the tower of Eder (i.e. of flocks), the place from whence it is to 
be that the king Meshiha will be revealed at the end of the days." If this 
association of Gen. xxxv. 21 with Messianic expectation goes back to the first 
century, it would encourage the theme of ' shepherds watching over the flocks ' 
on the night of the nativity of David's heir in David's town. 

1 Targums on the Pentateuch, E.T. by J. W. Etheridge, 1862, p. 281. 

eyevero] tyevero vpuT-rj fc?*D (?) Justin 

I 'E<yeVero e eV rals fjfiepais e/cetWn? etj\6ev 
Ka/crapo? Avyovcrrov airoypd^ecrdai Tracrav rrjv 
2 (avrr) a.7roypa<f)r) TT/OCOTT; eyevero ijye/jbovevovTos TT}? 

2 ain-T?] 4- 77 fc^ACL al Eus S~ 

J ~ t r ' ' TATi 

I. ei' rai.s lyyue/iais e/ccti'aisj Alter 
mention of the growth of the youth- 
ful John Baptist, the narrative now 
turns back to the period of the 
preceding story. The birth of Jesus 
must be placed six months after the 
birth of John. Cf. i. 26. 

Soyjua] A decree. Good Greek 
usage. Used again of imperial 
decrees, Ac. xvii. 7, and of the 
decrees of the Council at Jerusalem, 
Ac. xvi. 4. 

Ai'yowrroi'] The transliteration 
is less usual in Greek than the trans- 
lation 2e/3<rTo?. 


/3ac/>eo-#ai] 'to be enrolled.' 
Passive. The provincial enrolments 
of imperial times were undertaken 
for purposes of taxation. Cf. Schiirer, 
G.J.V. i. pp. 5iof., and literature 
there referred to. For the taxation 
itself the proper verb is UTTOTI/AUI'. 

Trwrav T)]\> CHKoiyxej/?/!/] A natural 
and usual exaggeration to mean the 
Roman Empire. 

a'i>T7j u-oy/}a</>r/, KT/\.] The best 
MSS. do not give the article between 
ui''T7y and uTroy^uc^yy. aurvy is there- 
fore best taken as subject and 
u7roy/3a</>?) TrpioTi) as predicate, avTij 
being attracted into agreement with 
the predicate. Cf. Blaas, 49. 4. 
The sentence is somewhat awkwardly 

expressed as there are virtually two 
predicates: Tr/jn'mj aTroyput/xy and 
?yye//,oi'ei''<n'Tos' r/Js ^. K. : "This was 
the first erifolment, that, namely, 
which was made when Q. was 
Governor of Syria." -/HOT?/ is in- 
tended to contrast this new pro- 
ceeding of the Roman Emperor with 
the previous condition of things 
when no such enrolment had been 
attempted. This gives a full and 
satisfactory meaning, and it har- 
monises with the reference to ?/ 
d~oy/Dtt(/y, ' the well-known enrol- 
ment,' in Ac. v. To suppose that 
7rp<'>TTj contrasts this enrolment with 
another that took place later is to 
introduce an idea which is irrelevant 


to the context. Reference may be 
made to Plummer (p. 50) for a full 
account and refutation of the various 
expedients which have been proposed 
to evade the plain meaning of the 
text. Lagrange revives the theory 
of Ewald and Caspari that TT/-JOJT?/ 
should be given a comparative force 
and made to govern the clause 
i/ye/xoi>Wro$ KT\. ; "This enrol- 
ment took place before Quirinius was 
Governor of Syria." But though 
TT/VOJTOS may govern a genitive with 
a comparative force as in Jo. i. 15, 
30, the addition of ?}ye/j,oi/euoi'ros' is, 



Kol eiropevovTO Travres a,7roypd(j)6a'6ai, e/cacrro? 3 
66? rrjv eavTov iro\LV. 'Avefirj Be KOL \wcrr)^> arrro TT}? 4 
e/c TroXew? Na^aper et? rr)i> 'lovSaiav et? TTO\LV 
Ka\elrai B^^Xee/z, Sta TO elvai avTOv e 
OLKOV /cat Trarpias AavetS, diro^pd'^raaOaL crvv yiapiafj, rfj 5 
efjLvrja'Tevfjiev'r) avrw, ovcrr) evtcvco. 'EiyeveTO Se ev rc5 eivai 6 
CLVTOVS 6Kt eTrXtjcrOrjcrav at rj/Aepai TOV re/celv avrrjv, KCLI 
ere/cev TOV vlov avT^ TOV irpwTOTOKov, KOI ea'Trap^dvaycrev 7 


5 rt\ e/j.vr}ffTVfj,ev7} O.VTW tf BCDL : uxore sua a b c ff 2 his wife syr.sin; add 
A al pier 1 q vg S~ 

Bethlehem for the enrolment, because 
he was of Davidic lineage. Zahn 
suggests that Joseph may have held 
property in Bethlehem. There is no 
hint of this in Luke. The motive of 
the narrative is to bring Joseph of 
the house of David to the city of 
David for the birth of the Messiah. 

5. rfj ep\n]<TTVfJiei>r) <LVTM] We 
should probably read r-n yvi>an<l 

3 i-< . '( / 

avrov with lat.vt (codd.) and syr.sin, 
the reading of N'BD etc. being an 
early modification under the influence 
of i. 26, and the reading of the 
majority of the MSS. a conflation 
of the two readings. Joseph and 
Mary are represented by Luke as 
living together. It would be strange 
if Mary were to travel with Joseph 
when she was only betrothed to him. 
ovo-v) evKvio] ' and she was great 
with child.' This addition to the 
sentence can hardly be thought of 
as giving a reason for Mary's accom- 
panying Joseph, but it prepares the 
way for the subsequent birth at 

6. For the wording cf. Gen. xxv. 
24, and above, i. 57. 

TOV irptDTOTOKOP-] The word may 
be regarded as preparing for v. 23 
infra, and as unemphatic. But had 
Luke wished to exclude the idea 
that JVIary had other children after 
her ' first-born,' he would almost 


asPlummer argues, fatal. Moreover, 
we should be left with a most point- 
less sentence. 

P. Sulpicius Quirinius became 
Governor of Syria in A.D. 6. The 
Governors of Syria in the later years 
of King Herod were : 9-6 B.C. Sentius 
Saturninus; 6-4 B.C. Quinctilius 

* 3. Trai/res] This need not be inter- 
preted to mean ' all the inhabitants 
of the Empire.' The intervening 
reference to Syria makes it easy to 
restrict the scope of this sentence to 
the inhabitants of Syria. The Roman 
census was based on residence. The 
method is well illustrated by Pap. 
Lond. 904, 20 f. (vol. iii. p. 124) 
which gives an edict (dated A.D. 104) 
of C. Vibius Maximus, Prefect of 
Egypt, requiring absentees to return 
to their own homes in view of the 
coming census : T-//S KIUT ol\Kiav 

ai/ay KCUOV 
s KU.&' 

aiT[tai/tt7ro TMV eavrwi/] 




airots yciapyia 

. This procedure harmonises 
well with the statement in v. 3, but 
in v. 4 Luke regards Joseph as a 
native of Nazareth who goes up to 



avrov Kal aveic\Lvev av-rov eV fyaTvr), SIOTL OUK TJV airrofc 

8 TOTTO? en TO> Kara\vfjiaTL. Kal 7roifj,6V<? rjffav ev rf) 
'X.wpa Tjy avry d i ypav\ovvT<$ Kal ^uXacro-oi/re? (j6i/A.a/ea? 
TT}? VVKTOS eVi T/)J> TTOI^VIIV avrfav. Kal 1776X09 Kuptou 

9 tVecrTT; aurot? /cat &oa Kvpiov 7Tpt\afji"^r6i> avrovs, Kal 

certainly have chosen another word, 
e.g. fj.ovoyei'-i'i<i which he uses below, 
c. vii., of the son of the widow of 
Nain. In point of fact Luke, like 
the other evangelists, regarded Mary 
as the mother of a family, viii. 19, 
and therefore TT^WTOTOKOS was a 
natural word to use of ' the first- 

Protev. Jac. xvii. (followed by Ev. 
Pseudo-Malt, xiii.) represents the 
birth as happening on the journey. 

7. iv (JHirvij] ' in a manger.' This 
is the usual meaning of the word, 
and it gives excellent sense. The 
manger or feeding - trough would 
probably be a movable receptacle 
placed on the ground. This Mary 
uses as a cradle for her infant. 
(flan')/ may also be used to mean 
' stall,' or the enclosure in which 
animals were penned (cf. Cadbury, 
Journal of Bibl. Lit., 1926, p. 317), 
and it has been thought that this 
meaning makes a better contrast to 
KUTuAn/iu. But iv </>uTi/7y goes closely 
with ut/e/cAti/er', and in this connexion 
the usual meaning of </>UTI/// is the 
most appropriate. 

8iun OVK -?jv KT/V.] The visitors were 
crowded out of the public shelter. 
;cuTaAi>// is probably inaccurately 
translated ' inn,' which is Trai/So^etot/ 
in x. 34. Tn xxii. II KUTU\VJJ.<I 
means ' the guest chamber,' and here 
too it probably denotes a single 
reception room in which the travellers 
would sleep. 

The tradition that the birth of 
Jesus took place in a cave is found 
as early as Justin, Dial. 78 eVeiS?) 
'Jajcr?)c/j OVK ei^ei' Iv rf) Kwfj.rj iKtivy 

7TOV KUTttA-IXTttt, eV CT7TT/Aai(0 TU'6 

T>ys KW/^/S KareAvcre 1 /cat 


Ma/oia TOI/ Xpurruv Kal Iv (f 
ai'roi' fTfQctKei ; and in Protev. Jac. 
xviii. f. Justin appeals to the text 
Is. xxxiii. 16. euros ot/o/crei eV 

The belief is' hardly likely to have 
arisen out of this text. Probably 
some traditional motif of a divine 
birth in a cave (cf. Clemen, pp. 195 f.) 
has reappeared in a Christian dress. 
The cave at Bethlehem was already 
shewn in the time of Origen (C. Cels. 
i. 51). Constantino's basilica was 
erected behind the traditional spot. 
There is no trace of this tradition 
in the Lucan or in *any Biblical 

8. Kttt TTot/xeves Tycrai'] The birth 
of the Christ is made known by 
an angel to shepherds. The idea 
that revelation is made to the 
simple is thoroughly in harmony 
with the spirit of the Gospels in 
general, and with St. Luke's Gospel in 
particular. But it was also a familiar 
notion in the ancient pagan world 
that the gods visited simple country 
people in preference to sophisticated 
town dwellers. Klostermann quotes 
Servius on Virg. Ed. x. 26, " solent 
riumina plerumque se rusticis 

Iv ry X^PV- r fl ttl ' T ?/] i- e - ^ ue 
country round Bethlehem. Here 
David had tended his father's sheep. 

Tf/s i'('/<T(Js] It is thus implied, 
though not definitely stated, that 
the birth of Jesus took place at 


^)0/3r)0r)o"av (j)o(3ov fjieyav /cat elirev avrols o ayyeXos IO 


M?) (froftetcrOe, IBou yap vayye\i^ofj,at vfjuv ^apav 

carat Travri rw Xaa>, on ere^dr] (n'jpepov <rajTr)p I I 

^/3tCTT09 KVplO? l> 7TO\l AaVl8' KOI TOVTO VfJ.IV 12 

eupijo-eT /3|oe</>o9 HcrTrapyavcofJievov KOI Kei/Jisvov ev 
KOI et;e<f)vr)<; eyevero avv rw dyyeXta 7r\fj0o<; arpa- 1 3 
ovpaviov alvovvrwv TOV 6eov KCLI \eyovrwv 

0eq> KOI e?rl 7779 elpijvr) ev av- 



14 euSoKtas N*AB*DW latt acg.sah go Iren(lat) Orig patres latt. oinn. : evdoKta 
L 33 al perm syrraeg.boh Dint Orig 3 Ens Bas Grcg.Naz Cyr.Hier Did Epiph Cyr S~ 

10. /xry <f>of3a<r0(] So also the an- 
gelic annunciations both to Zacharias 
and to Mary begin /*} </>o/?ou. 

t(5oi y/o e.vayy\i^ . . . (rtorr//)] 
It is noteworthy that two of the 
words in the angelic~ annunciation 
of the birth of the Messiah (ei'uy- 
ycAt^o/xat, cru)T7//)) agree with the 
language concerning the birthday of 
Augustus in the commemorative in- 
scription of Priene and other Asiatic 
towns (Dittenberger, Or. Gr. I user. 
Sel. no. 458, ii. p. 53) : 'E7rc[iSi) 17 
Trai/Tu] Staru^ttcra TOV (3Lov 
irpovota. ... TO TeAryoraroi/ rtp 

TOI/ f 

">][fJiS.<s (riorijpa Tre/zi/'ttcra] TOI/ 
O'oi'Ttt /xei/ TToAe/xoi/, Kocr/z/ycroi/Ta 5e 

TTUl/Ta . . . fjp^fV Sc T(p KOlTjWU) TIKI/ 

St' ai'roi/ ciiayycAi[ai/ >} yci/e^Aios] 
ToD t'eoi) ... 

Travrt T<3 Aatp] i.e. for all the 
people of Israel. 

ii. (r(UT//f)] Used of Jesus here 
only in the synoptic Gospels. Twice 
in Ac. (v. 3i,xiii.23). In indubitably 
Pauline Epp. only Phil. iii. 20. On 
the other hand it occurs frequently 
in the Pastoral Epp. and 2 Pet. 
Also in Jo. iv. 42 and I Jo. iv. 14. 
On the history of the title cf. Wend- 
land, Z.N.T.W., 1904, pp. 335 f. 

<"s eyrti/ xpwrros /aynos] ' who 
is Christ [and] Lord.' This seems 
better than with B. Weiss to make 
X/Mo-rosan adjective, 'anointed Lord.' 
Possibly there has been an error 
at some stage in transcription or 
translation from the Aramaic, and 
the original words were X/no-ros 
Kiyjiou 'the Lord's Christ' as 
below, v. 26. This error occurred 
in LXX trans, of Lam. iv. 20, and 
possibly also in Ps. Sol. xvii. 36 (cf. 
xviii. 6). 

12. 0-ijfjt.eToi'] A token which shall 
at once serve to identify the child 
and to confirm the angel's words. 

14. The reading of syr.sin, which 
inserts a KCU before [V] u.\'6pii>~ois, 
and reads ei'So/aa, would give a three- 
fold division to thesongof the heavenly 
host : " Glory to God in the highest, 
and on earth peace, and goodwill to 
men." But there is but slender 
support for the KUI, and the weight 
of MS. evidence upholds the genitive 
voY>/aas. We must therefore re- 
cognise two clauses connected by 
KUI'. The former ^proclaims God's 
glory in heaven, the second his gift 
of peace to his chosen upon earth. 
ai'0/HoiroL erSoKt'us seems to be 
virtually an equivalent for 7n?s o 
Auo$ above (so .). Weiss), 'amoni; 


1 5 Kl eyeveTo ft>? aTrri\6ov air avTwv et? TOV ovpavbv ol 
ayye\oL, OL Troifjueves e\d\ovv irpbs aXX^Xow AteX$ft)/itez/ 
Br) eo)9 B^^Xeeyw. KOL iBcofjiev TO prjfjua TOVTO TO 7670^09 o o 

1 6 Kvpuos eyvaapio-ev rjfJilv. teal rj\0av <nrevo~avTe<$ /cal dvevpav 
TTJV Te Mapia/JL teal TOV IwcrTjcf) teal TO (Bpefyos Keifjievov ev 

I? T f} <f>dTvy ISovTes Be eyvcopicrav Trepl TOV prj/jbaTOs TOV 

1 8 \a\rj6evTos avTols Trepl TOV TraiSiov TOVTOV. /cal 

ol d/covcravTes edav/jiacrav Trepl TWV \a\r)6 evTWV VTTO 

19 TTOLfjLevcov TT/309 avTovs, r] Be Mapia irdvTa avveTqpei, TO, 

20 prj/JbaTa TavTa o~vv/3dhXovo~a ev Trj tcapBia avTrj^. teal 

the men of his choice,' or ' of his 
good pleasure.' A Christian reader 
would naturally interpret of the new 
Israel, the Christian Church. For 
this absolute use of cuSoKt'a for the 
divine good pleasure cf. Ps. Sol. 
viii. 39 KOU rots TCKI/OIS -fjp,(av 
rj evSoKta eis TOV atwi/a, Ki'/ote, 
crwTVjp 7^/Awi/, ov (raAev^rjcro/xe^a eVt 
TOV attova \povov. This gives a 
meaning more appropriate to the 
context than to interpret ei5So/aa of 
human goodwill (as in Ps. Sol. iii. 4, 
xvi. 12), thus introducing the thought 
that the divine peace can only be 
bestowed where human goodwill is 
already present. 

Gressmann (quoted in Kloster- 
mann) suggests that euSo/ci'as is due 
to a misreading of the Aramaic con- 
junction 1 'and ' for the preposition T 
' of.' The original would thus have 
read ' Glory in the highest to God, 
and on earth peace to men, and 
goodwill.' But the appended 'and 
goodwill ' is again awkward. If we 
follow the reading of the best Greek 
MSS. we obtain a good sense, though 
the rhythmical balance of the two 
clauses is poor. 

15. SieA.$to/tev S?y] Lucan phrase- 
ology. 8iepxcr6ai v. freq. in Luke 
and Acts, and cf. Ac. xv. 36 

TO prjfj,a TOVTO TO yeyoi/os] 
again in the Hebraic sense of ' thing ' 
or 'event.' Similarly in v. 17 
TOV prjp.a.TO<s TOV AaA/^evTos 
does not mean ' concerning the word 
that had been spoken to them,' but 
' concerning the matter which had 
been declared to them.' 

1 8. TravTes 06 a/cowrai/Tes] Cf. 
supra i. 66 of ' all those who heard ' 
the circumstances of the birth of 

1 9 . Mary is placed in a certain con- 
trast to the shepherds. The shepherds 
published the tidings ; Mary did not 
speak, but silently reflected upon 
what had happened, /'^fj-ara again 
means ' things,' not, as Klostermann 
tentatively suggests with a reference 
to the preceding verse, ' words.' TO, 
XaXijOevTo, i'7ro TWV Trot/xei/wi' would 
include both the angel's annuncia- 
tion and its corroboration for them 
when they found Mary and Joseph 
and the babe. The latter was not 
X.aXt)6tv for Mary. Mary reflected 
on the ' events,' of which the angel's 
appearance, related to her no doubt 
by the shepherds, was a part. 

20. The shepherds returned to 
their flocks, praising God for what 
they had heard (vv. 10-14) aQ d for 
what they had seen in confirmation 

v. 15, i<5oi/Tes v. 17). 


v ol iroi/jieve*; &odovT<; KOL alvovvres rov 6sov 
iraaiv oi? rjfcovcrav Kal elSov Kadajs eKaKrjOri Trpo<$ 

IN THE TEMPLE (ii. 21-40) 

The narrative continues in the spirit of traditional Jewish piety. The 
circumcision of Jesus is related, but it is not invested with any doctrinal 
significance. The emphasis falls upon the naming of the child in accordance 
with the angel's words to Mary. The Pauline thought of Christ as " born of 
a woman, born under the Law, that he might redeem those under the Law " 
(Gal. iv. 4f .) is entirely absent. The circumcision is introduced simply as a part 
of customary Jewish observance. The same motive prompts the visit of the 
holy family to the Temple. The visit to the Temple affords the occasion for 
Symeon and the aged Hannah, representing the faithful piety of true Israelites, 
to recognise under divine guidance the fulfilment of the hope of Israel in the 
infant Jesus a fulfilment" which Symeon sees to be destined to bring light 
to all the world. * 

The presentation in the Temple was perhaps at some time a story in 
itself and was only later incorporated in a larger cycle. Symeon's action 
and words gain in meaning if they were originally the first intimation to the 
parents of the destiny of their child (cf. v. 33 n.). 

The motif of an ancient sage welcoming the infant redeemer is found in 
the stories of the Buddha. For the different forms of the Buddhist story 
reference may be made to Windisch, Brahmanischer Einfluss im Buddhismus. 1 
The earliest source for the legend is the Sutta-Nepata, Mahavagga 11 (Nalaka- 
sutta). 2 The sage Asita hears the gods rejoicing over the birth of the Buddha. 
" The Bodhisatta," they cry, " the excellent pearl, the incomparable, is born 
for the good and for a blessing in the world of men, in the town of the Sakyas, 
in the country of Lumbini. Therefore we are glad and exceedingly pleased." 
Asita descended from heaven and went to Suddhodana's palace and enquired 
of the Sakyas : " Where is the prince ? I wish to see him." The Sakyas 
shewed him the child, and Asita, receiving him, cried in a loud voice, " Without 
superior is this, the most excellent of men." 

It is held by some scholars that there is connexion of some kind between 

1 In Avfsiitze zur Kultur- u. Sprachgeschichle des Orients dedicated to Ernst 
Kuhn, Miinchen, 1916, pp. 6 f. 

2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. x. pp. 1 23 f. J 


this story of the infancy of Christ and the story of the infancy of Buddha. 1 
But this seems improbable. The theme of an old man anticipating the future 
of the divine child is in itself one that may easily have arisen independently. 
It has further been urged that the rejoicing of the gods over the birth of the 
infant Buddha finds a counterpart in the angelic hymn of Lk. ii. 14. But 
this seems rather to tell against the suggestion of dependence, for while the 
hymn of the gods and the visit of Asita to the Sakyas stand in organic con- 
nexion in the Buddhist story, there is no internal relation between their 
counterparts in the Christian story. Lastly, the tone of the Buddhist story is 
different from the Christian. Symeon is now ready to ' depart in peace,' 
since it has been vouchsafed to him to see the Lord's Christ. Asita, on the 
other hand, " remembering his own migration was displeased and shed tears." 
" My life here," he cried, " will shortly be at an end, in the middle (of his life) 
there will be death for me. I shah 1 not hear the Dhamma of the incomparable 
one ; therefore I am afflicted, unfortunate, and suffering " (Sutta-Nepata, 
op. cit. p. 125). ~ 

1 So Garbe, Indien und das Christentum, with whom Cbarpcntier, in a review in 
Zeilxch. Deutsch. Morgendl. Ge.sell., 1915, p. 442, agrees. Against the theory of 
dependence, Bultmaun, G.S.T. p. 180, and Clemen, Itel. gesch. Erkldrung d. N.T. 
pp. 209 f. The latter gives full references to the literature. 

2 I Rat ore irr\i]O'6ti<j'av ^epai OKTIO TOV TrepiTe^elv CLVTOV, 

KCLt, K\r]Q'Y) TO OVOjJia avTOV I ty<7oG<?, TO K\l]6kv V7TO TOV 

dyye\ov irpo TOU avKX-rj^O^vaL CLVTOV ev Ty KOikia. 
22 Kat ore errAi-icGHC&N A! HMe'pAi TOY K&GAPICAAOY avT&v KCLTO, 

22 auTui> SB al ]>ler : CCUTOU D al lat.vt (codd) syr.sin Aug: aurrjs minuse pcrpuuc 

21. TO? 7re/HTe/mv ai'Toi'] The TO i(\i)0t.v VTTO TOV a-yycAov] The 

fact of the circumcision of Jesus is story here links up with the angelic 

implied, but in no way emphasised. Annunciation to Mary, i. 31. 

The emphasis falls upon the naming 22. at y fie pat TOV Ko.Oapiarp.ov'] 

of the child. On the association of According to the Law in Lev. xii. 

the naming with the rite of circum- after the birth of a male child the 

cision cf. i. 59 n. Mary and Joseph mother was unclean for seven days, 

are in a strange land. It is there- and was then confined to the bouse 

fore natural that we should not hear for a further period of thirty-three 

here, as we do in the account of days. After these days of purifica- 

John's circumcision and naming, tion are ended, she is to bring her 

of the presence of neighbours and offering to the priest at the sanctuary. 

kinsfolk. TOI> Ku$apio-/xor ai'Twi/] O.VTMV, the 

ital exX'/jOrj] KU.L (om. D 69 etc.) best attested reading, is difficult. 

in apodosis according to Semitic The Law prescribes no purification for 

idiom. Cf. Blass, 77. 6. the husband. Probably UUTUJI/ should 


TOV vofjiov Mftji/cre'ftj?, avr) r ya r yov avTov 19 *\epoao\v/jia irapa- 
aTrjaai rro Kupiw, KaOais yeypaTTTai ev vofMM Kvpiov ore 23 
TOV Sovvai Ovaiav Kara TO fiprj/Aevov ev TM VO/JLM Kvpiov, 24 
ze^roc TPYTONCON H Ay'o NOCCOYC nepicrepojN. Kat t'Soi/ 

av0pa)7ro<; rjv ev ' \epova-a\rjjj, (o ovofjia Sinewy, rat o avdpo)- 2$ 
TTO? OWTO? Si/cato? 

24 pocrcrous NB9 69-124 etc : veoaffovs ADLS~ 

be interpreted of the mother and 
child (so Orig.) rather than of Mary 
and Joseph (Plumraer and others), 
since Luke proceeds to connect the 
visit of Mary to the Temple for her 
purification with the ' presentation ' 
of the infant Jesus. This connexion 
seems to rest on an imperfect under- 
standing of the legal requirement. 
Ex. xiii. 1-2 lays down the principle 
" Sanctify unto me all the first-born, 
whatsoeveropeneth the womb among 
the children of Israel, both of man and 
of beast : it is mine." Verse 13 then 
modifies this by prescribing redemp- 
tion in the case of the first-born 
child. This was a different act 
from the purification of the mother. 
Besides the legal principle of Ex. 
xiii. from which Luke freely quotes 
(TTUI/ d/xrei/ . . . K-A)y^ycrerai), Luke 
probably has in mind the presenta- 
tion of Samuel at the sanctuary at 
Shiloh (i Regn. i. 24 f.). Like 
Samuel, Jesus is solemnly dedicated 
by his parents to God, and in this 
dedication Luke sees a spiritual 
fulfilment of the legal principle 
(Ex. xiii.) that the first-born belongs 
to God. The legal provision of re- 
demption by a substitute offering in 
the case of a child is passed over 
without notice. 

dw/yayoj/j i.e. from Bethlehem, 
where Mary had been confined, to 

23. TTU.V Stavolyov p.t'iTpa.v\ The 

citation of this text shews, if it be 
necessary to shew, that the doctrine 
of the parlus clauso (cf. Prolev. 
xix f.) was unknown to the evangelist. 

24. fevyos rpvyvviov . . . 7re/u- 
o-Tepeoi/] Mary therefore comes under 
the rubric of Lev. xii. 8 that " if 
the woman's means suffice not for a 
Iamb, then she shall take two turtle- 
doves or two young pigeons, the one 
for a burnt offering, and the other 
for a sin offering." 

vocrwovs] The vulgar form vocrcro us 

J O 

attested by SB and the Ferrar 
group is to be preferred to i/eoo-om's 
of T.R. The same v.l. occurs in 
the LXX, Lev. v. n, and xii. 8 
(here quoted). Cf. Phryn. clxxxii. 
vocr(riov' uju.0oii/ Aeurei 
Sta TOVTO dSo/ci/AO.' Aeye 
veoTTtov iva dp^alos 


25. The name Symeon was very 
common, and attempts to identify 
the man here intended, for instance 
as Symeon, the son of Hillel and 
father of Gamaliel, are necessarily 
precarious. The words of the Nunc 
Dimillis suggest that Symeon was 
an old man, though this is not 
directly stated by Luke. 

cuAa/Jv/s] 'devout.' The adj. is con- 
fined in N.T. to Luke, occurring also 
in Ac. ii. 5, viii. 2, xxii. 12. The 
noun ci'Aa^eia occurs Heb. v. 7, xii. 
28. The words occur in good Greek 
writers from Plato downwards with 


26 rov *\(rparj\,, KOI Trvev^a rjv ayiov eV avrov teal r)V avrw 
Ke^prj/^artcrfjLevov VTTO rov irvevfJLaro^ rov ayiov fjJrj IBeiv 

27 Odvarov 'jrplv [r/] av iSy rov -^pLcrrov Kvpiov. real rj\.6ev 
ev TO) irvevfjiari et? TO lepov KOI ev TO> elaayayelv row? 
yoveis TO iraibiov 'Irjcrovv rov TToiija-ai avrov? Kara TO 

28 eldia-^evov rov VO/JLOV Trepl avrov real avros eSetfaro avro 
ei? T&9 ayKaKas KOI ev\oyr)o~v rov deov /cal elirev 

29 NOy avroXuet? rov $ov\ov o~ov, 
Kara TO pfjad crov ev elprjvy 
26 irpiv t\ av] oin t] B 36 : om av D al pier : ews av fc$ al aliq 

the meaning ' cautious,' ' caution.' 
In later Greek the words are especially 
used in connexion with religion : 
' careful ' or ' conscientious ' in respect 
of religious duties. So Diod. Sic., 
Plut., Philo, LXX. See P.B. s.v, 

'IcrparyA] Cf. Is. xl. I 7ra/)aKa/XetTe 
7rapa;<ttA.etTe TOI/ Aaoi/ p.ov, Aeyet 6 
0eo<;. Symeon was looking for the 
fulfilment of ' the hope of Israel.' 
S.B. ii. pp. 124 f. shew that the term 
was in frequent use among the Rabbis 
for the fulfilment of the Messianic 

Kal Trvevfjia ?jv aytov eir avrov'] 
'and holy spirit was upon him.' 
The separation of Trveu/xa and uyioi/ 
by the verb fjv is a somewhat unusual 
order, but Plummer presses the 
sentence too much in interpreting 
' an influence which was holy was 
upon him.' There is no sufficient 
reason to distinguish sharply the 
meaning here from the meaning of 
the phrase Tri^e^/xaros aytov Tr/V?/- 
arO?ivu.i i. 15, i. 41, i. 67. 

26. TIV avriij K.\pr}[j.a.Ti(riJLevov~\ 
XprjfiaTtfra, ' to give a divine re- 
sponse, oracle, or revelation ' (Diod. 
Sic., Plut., Lucian, Joseph, etc. as well 
as LXX), may be used in the passive 
with the subject either, as here, of 
the revelation, or of the person to 

whom the revelation is made (so 
Mt. ii. 12, 22, Ac. x. 22, Heb. viii. 
5, xi. 7). 

\ r^T "S n / \ i; . 

n-piv [ij] a.v iby] irpiv or irpiv i] is 
constructed with the subj. here only 
in N.T. The constr. with the optat. 
is found only in Ac. xxv. 16. In 
both these Lucan passages irpiv 
correctly follows a preceding nega- 
tive. Cf. Moulton, Proleg. i. p. 169; 
Blass, 65. 10. The usual constr. 
of irplv in N.T. is with accus. and 
aor. infin. 

27. ei> Tri/ev/xttTt] The Spirit guides 
Symeon to enter the Temple at the 
right moment. 

kv T( etcrayayeti'] Aor. ' when 
his parents had brought in the child 

28. Kal avros] Cf. /cat IwA?^^ 
v. 21 supra and note. 

29-32. This beautiful hymn has 
been used in the evening services of 
the Church since the fifth century 
(Apost. Constit. vii. 48). 

29. vvv~\ Emphatic. Now Symeon 
has received the fulfilment of what, 
under God's guidance, he had looked 
for. The hymn corresponds closely to 
what has been stated before : Kara 
TO pvj/j.0. crov refers back to the divine 
promise (yjv aiVio KexpTy/zaTw/zei'oj/ 
v. 26), which Symeon now acknow- 
ledges to have been fulfilled : his eyes 


on, eTAoN ol o^>9a\fjioi f^ov r6 CCOT^PIO'N coy 

b rjroLfjiacras K<VTA npo'cconoN TT^NTCON TCON A&CON, 
4>toc eic ATTOK^AYM'IN eGNcoN 

Ao'S&N XaoO aov Mcp&riA. 


3 * 

3 2 

o Trarrjp avrov Ka rj 

0avfjbd^ovre<? eVt rot? 33 

33 o iraTiqp avTov SBDL 1-131 157 vg syr.sin aegg Orig : Iwcnj0 A al pier 5" 

have seen (v. 30) what it was promised 
he should see (v. 26), namely, the 
salvation of God, brought near in 
the Lord's Christ (v. 26). 

ttTToAveis TOV SoOAov crov, SecrTrpra] 
"All three words shew that the 
figure is that of the manumission of 
a slave, or of his release from a 
long task. Death is the instrument 
of release" (Plummer). uTroAuw is 
used in the O.T. of the deaths of 
Abraham (Gen. xv. 2), of Aaron 
(Num. xx. 29), of Tobit (Tob. iii. 6), 
of a martyr (2 Mace. vii. 9). Cf. 
also Epictet. i. 9. 16 orav 
(so. 6 


vaa<$ TavTr]<s Tr<s VTrypeo-ias, TOT 
TT/JOS avTov. 

Rarely used of God in 
N.T. Cf. Ac. iv. 24, Rev. vi. 10. 
See also Job y. 8 Kvpiov 8e TOV 
TTU.VTIDV SecnroT^v 7riKaA.ecro/>icu, 
Wisdom vi. 7, viii. 3, Ecclus. xxxvi. 
I, 3 Mace. ii. 2, and fairly fre- 
quently in the LXX (about thirteen 
times) ag a rendering of l'nx,'j'l. 

kv flp\v\i\ Placed emphatically at 
the end to correspond to the opening 
vvv. " It is the peace of complete- 
ness, of work finished and hopes 
fulfilled " (Plummer). Cf. Gen. xv. 15 
(of Abraham) cru Se uTreAeuo^ TT/OOS 
TOVS irarkpa.<s (TOV 

30. eiSov ... TO 
The irapdi< Averts (v. 25) for which 
Symeon had looked, and which 
Isaiah had prophesied (xl. i), is now 

visible. Cf . Is. in the same chapter, 
v. 5 Kal o</>0)j(reT<u ^ Soa Kvpiov, 
Kal o^crat iratra (rap TO <r<i)Trjpiov 
TOV 6eov. (Quoted below, iii. 6.) 

31. The salvation is for all man- 
kind. Cf. Is. Iii. IO KOU dTTOKaAitya 
Kvptos TOV /3pa%iiava TOV ayiov 


KOL o^oimu iravTa aKpa Trj<s 
o~ii)Trjpiav Trjv irapa TOV 


32. 0as ets ttTTO/caAv^ti/ . . . Kal 

It is doubtful whether <ws 
and 86av should be taken as two co- 
ordinates in apposition to crom/ptov, 
or whether <ws alone should be 
regarded as in apposition to o-coTvy- 
piov with a.iroKa.Xv\Jjiv and 86av as 
parallel statements of the illumina- 
tion which the salvation brings 
about. The former seems to suit 
the language equally well with the 
latter, and is perhaps in closer agree- 
ment with the thought of the Gospel : 
the Messianic salvation brings out 
the full and true glory of Israel and 
sheds universal light upon all the 
peoples of the world. 

<^>ws ei's ctTTOKaAui/'ii/ Wvu>v\ ' a 
light to give revelation for the 
Gentiles.' So of the Lord's servant 
in Is. xlix. 6 SeoWa ere ... et's <(!;$ 
eOvuv, and ib. xlii. 6 dvoi^at. oc/>$aA- 

UOVS TVlfrXtoV. 

33. Kal f/v 6 TraTrjp avTov Kal rj 
fju'lTijp 0av/iuovTes] The wonder of 
the parents should not be understood 
to arjse only from the universal 


34 XaXo 17-16^049 ir^pl CIVTOV. KOI evXayrjaev avrov? 
teal eiirev 7rpo<? Mapia/A rr^v fjiyrepa avrov '15oi> 
Kelrai '49 TTTWGiv KcCi dvdvTacriv vroXXcof eV TOO 

35 /u 649 atjfJLelov dvTi\e^/OfJLevov, ical aov avTtjs rr;j/ 

35 /cat ffou] add 5e XD al pier Orig 5" : sine addit BLS 

character of the redemption implied 
in the last words of Symeon's hymn ; 
they wonder at the whole of what 
is said in connexion with the child. 
The ' wonder ' of the parents is 
certainly very naturally in place, if 
we suppose, with Loisy, Bultmann, 
and others, that this narrative once 
stood by itself and described the 
first intimation to the parents of 
the character and destiny of their 

Note that Joseph is spoken of as 
6 TTUT^/O auroG without especial 
notice or qualification. 

34'35- O " T 5 KCITUI] This child is 
appointed for a mission which will 
cause many to fall and many to rise 
in Israel. This is the twofold out- 
come of the advent of the Christ. 
Some reject him and fall, others 
receive him and rise. It may be 
that the two texts of Isaiah con- 
cerning the stone of stumbling (viii. 
14) and the precious corner-stone on 
which " he that believeth shall not 
be put to shame" (xxviii. 16, cf. 
Ro. ix. 33) lie behind the thought 
of the passage. Cf. xx. 17 f. with 
note ad loc. 

This is a more satisfactory inter- 
pretation than to suppose that the 
jrrwtris and the di/utrTucrts represent 
the penitence and the restoration of 
the same persons. J. Weiss suggests 
that Kttt ai/acrracrti/ is the insertion 
of an editor. Its omission would 
make a closer connexion with the 
next clause /cui a's o-vy/zetoi/ aim- 
', but the contrasted terms 

and ai/ao-raats must surely 
be original. 

Elsewhere in the N.T. di/ao-rao-ts 
is always used of the resurrection of 
the dead. 

cts <r?7/Atoi/ di/rtA.eyo/xei/oi'] Jesus 
is a sign to Israel (cf. xi. 30), but 
a sign which meets with contradic- 

Kttt trou ttUT/Js . . . pofLtjxua] .This 
clause, addressed to Mary personally, 
is a parenthesis which seems to break 
the connexion, since the last clause 

O7TWS til/ U7TOKttAuC/i6'(U(7tl' KxA. HdUSt 

refer back to v. 34. Perhaps it was 
not present in an earlier source, but 
was inserted by the evangelist, who, 
on this view, is likely also to be 
responsible for making Symcon ad- 
dress his prophecy to Mary alone. 
(So Loisy.) The words describe the 
grief of the mater dolorosa. The 
link with the preceding sentence is 
probably to be found in the thought 
of the passion of Christ, implied, 
though not explicitly foretold, in the 
word uvTiAeyo/zevoi/. Mary's heart 
will be pierced by the suffering 
which will fall upon her son. This 
seems better than to suppose with 
Origen and some moderns (Reuss 
and Bleek) that the sword is a 
sword of doubt which will pierce 
Mary, as though even she were to 
be tempted to join the di/TiAeyoi/Tcs. 
For the wording cf. Orac. Sib. iii. 316 
(jOfJL(j}(t.La yap 6ieAewercu Sia [utrov 
creto (i.e. Egypt). 

OTTOJS CLV d~oKaAiu/>#uKrti/ /crA.] 
By the response which they make 



Kal r)V " kvva irpo(j)7Jrt^, 

<\>avovt'}\, e/c <uX?}? 'Aaijp, (avrrj r Trpo(3eft'r)Kvla 
eV rjfjbepais TroXXai?, V;cra<ra //-era dv&pos err) errra avro 
n}? TrapOevias aim/9, KOI avrrj ^pa ew? erwv oySorjKovra 37 

rj OVK d(j)tcrraro rov iepov vr)arelai<s KOL Ser)- 
\arpeuovffa vvKra KCU i^epav. teal avrfi ry aipa 38 
eVtcrracra dvOayfjioKo'yelro rc3 dew KOL e'XaXet irepi avrov 
iraffLV TO? irpoff^e^OfjievoL^ Xvrpwcriv iepovcraXrjfji. 

Kal a>? erehecrav irdwra ra Kara rov VO/J.QV Kvpiov, 39 
eVecrr/3e^a^' et? ryv Ta\i\aLav et? TTO\LV eavr&v Na^aper. 

To Be ira&iov Tjv^avev Ka\ eKparaiovro ir\fjpovfj.evov 40 
cro(f)iq, KOI xdpi? 9eov rjv eV avro. 

to the Christ, the thoughts of men's eighty-four years as a widow, since 

hearts will stand revealed. 

36-38. The aged prophetess Anna 
is a counterpart to Symeon. No 
detail is given of what she said 
when she encountered the holy family. 
She is represented as a devoted 
widow like the faithful widows of 
the Church (i Tim. v. 5 t'j 5e oVrous 
X''lf >a 7r/>o(r/jui'i rats Se/ycrecrt 
/cat rats Tr^owei'Xcus ci'/cros nul 
>;/xc/)as). Perhaps she is thought 
of as actually living within the 
temple precincts. She speaks of the 
child to a group of like-minded 
faithful Israelites who ' looked for 
the redemption of Jerusalem.' 

36. i"'T7j Tr/KJ/Je/JjyKi'iu KrA.] The 
clause is awkwardly expressed, and 
the construction is uncertain. T]I/ 
should probably be supplied with 
TT/)O/^/^?/K i'iu. The words KIU at'r?) 
X*lP a Te(ro-'/)wi/ can. scarcely 
be taken to mean that after her 
husband's death she had lived for 

this would make her incredibly and 
unsuitably aged. We are to under- 
stand that she was eighty-four years 
of age, and after a brief .married life 
of seven years had continued a 
widow. Cf. Judith viii. 4 f., xvi. 22 f. 

38. The language is characteristi- 
cally Lucan : avry rij /><*, t-rrunuuTu., 
TTjOoo-Se^o/xevots (cf. also Mk. xv. 43). 
ui'$o/AoAoya(r#ui] ' to render thanks 
to God,' here only in N.T. 

39. The parents return to ' their 
own city,' Nazareth. Note the con- 
trast with the course of events in 
Mt., where Nazareth does not come 
into the story until after the return 
of the holy family from Egypt. 

40. Compare the account of the 
growth of the Baptist in i. 80. The 
words in each case are carefully 
chosen. John ' waxes strong ir spirit' 
in a desert life. Jesus remains in 
the home circle, ' filled with wisdom ' 
and blessed by the grace of God. 


A single incident from the boyhood of Jesus illustrates his ' growth in 
wisdom' (vv. 40, 52) and makes a transition from the infancy to the public 
ministry. It is in keeping with the psychological and biographical interest 


of Luke to introduce a link of this kind. Moreover, the story furthers his 
literary aim of giving a continuous and connected narrative. 

The origin of the story cannot be recovered. It seems not to presuppose 
the experiences of Mary and Joseph related before (of. v. 50), and perhaps 
derives from a different cycle of tradition. 

Stories somewhat similar in type about the boyhood of great men are 
found elsewhere in ancient biographical literature. Such are the stories of 
the boyhood of Cyrus (Hdt. i. 114 f.), of Alexander (Plut. Alex. 5), of Apol- 
lonius (Philostratus, VitaApoll. i. 7). Compare also the accounts of the child- 
hood of Moses in Jos. Ant. ii. 9. 6, and Philo, Vita Mos. i. p. 83 M. But the 
closest parallel to the Lucan narrative is the account which Josephus gives 
of his own boyhood ( Vita 2). When still a boy of about fourteen years of age, 
so Josephus relates of himself, his learning was of such repute that he was 
praised by the chief priests and rulers of the city, when they met together, for 
the accurate knowledge of the Law which he displayed. 

The narrative in the Gospel is free from any thought of pride of learning. 
By his questions and his answers Jesus shews himself master of the subjects 
which the Rabbis were discussing. But the central idea of the narrative is 
disclosed when his parents find him and question him concerning his behaviour. 
He must be in his Father's house, and so we may interpret he must become 
master of the ancient revelation which his Father had given to Israel and which 
he was to fulfil. By the words ' in my Father's house ' Jesus is shewn as con- 
scious, from boyhood, of a unique sonship to God. This lays upon him duties 
which may call him from his parents, and even bring some note of discord into 
his relations with them. But the discord is only momentary. Mary ponders 
quietly over the words of her son, and the sou returns to live in obedience to 
his parents in the home at Nazareth. 

The mother of Jesus appears but once more in the Lucan Gospel. The 
occasion is when she with her other sons comes to visit Jesus during his ministry 
and calls forth the saying " My mother and my brethren are they who hear 
the word of God and do it " (viii. 19 f.). But in Luke we are not told, as we 
are in his Marcan source, that " his mother and his brethren came to take 
him, for they said (or for it was said) ' he is beside himself.' " 

41 Kat eiropevovro ol 701/669 avrov KCLT ero? et? 'lepovcra- 

41 ot 7<H>eis avrov e f vg Aug : Joseph et Maria a b al : his kinsfolk syrr. 

41. HOL liropevovTo . . . rov 7rda-\a] the three great feasts in the central 
The Law prescribed attendance at sanctuary for all male Israelites. 



\rjfM ry eoprfj rov rrda-^a. Kal ore eyevero erwv SfaBeKa, 42 
dvajSaivovrwv avrwv Kara TO eOos 7*779 eoprfjs Kal reXetto- 43 
r9 rjaepas, ev TW vrcocrrpe^eiv avrovs vrre^eivev 
o 7rat9 ev 'Iepov(ra,\yfjb, Kal OVK eyvaxrav 01 yoveis 
avrov. vojubia-avres Be avrov elvai ev rfj <rvvo$ia r/\0ov 44 

6Bov Kal dvetyrovv avrov ev rot9 crvyyevecriv Kal 
7Z/6XTT049, Kal fjt,rj evpovTes vrrearpe^av et9 'lepova-a\rj/JL 45 
avrov. Kal e^evero uera rjfjiepas rpels evpov 46 
tepw KaOe^opevov ev yLtetrcij rwv ^L^acrKaXwv 
Kal aKOVovra avrwv Kal errepwrwvra avrov<>' e^Lcrravro Be 47 
rrdvre^ ol aKovovre^ avrov eVl ry crvvea-ei Kal rals drco- 
Kpicrecnv avrov. Kal l&ovres avrov ee7r\dyr)(rav, Kal elrrev 48 
avrov T) ^Typ avrov TeKvov, rl err operas rj/uv 

avrov ev rw 

OUTC09; IBov o Trarrjp crov Kal eycb oSwatfjuevot, 

43 eyvwaav 01 yoveis avrov &BDL9 I etc 33 157 a e vg aegg Aug : his 
kinsfolk etc. syr.sin : eyvw Iuari<f> /cat -rj ^77x77/3 aurou AC al pier b f syr (vg.hl)5~ 

48 o TraTrjp ffov /cat 670? om a b syr. cur 

The attendance of women was not 
prescribed in the Law, and the 
question of the appearance of women 
and children at the feasts was at 
some early period a matter of con- 
troversy. See S.B. ii. p. 142. 

42. ITMV SwSeKa] The age of 

aTJTtoi>] dvaftaiveiv, 

found in Strabo, Epictetus, Josephus, 
and inscrr. See P.B. s.v. 

46. /xero. r)fj.epa<s T/)ets] A reckoning 
is probably intended from the time of 
the parents' departure. On the first 
day they travelled homeward, on the 
second day they returned, and on the 
third they found him. So Grotius. 
evpov ai'roi>] How the boy had been 
a quasi-technical term for 'going living in the meantime we are not told, 
up ' to a feast. Cf. Jo. xii. 20. The eV T<O te/o<r>] The scene appears to 
present tense of the participle (con- be some chamber in the temple 
trast TeA.eiaxrai/TOjj') is appropriate buildings where scribes met for teach- 

to the meaning ' on the occasion of 
their visit to Jerusalem for the feast.' 

ing and discussion. Ifc seems that 
the boy is attending some general dis- 

i;//.e/)as] i.e. the seven days of cussion between a group of teachers. 

He listens to what is said, and 
himself asks questions on the points 
in debate. The Gospel of Thomas 
(c. xix.) makes the boy Jesus reduce 

the feast of Passover and Unleavened 

43. VTrepewev'Iyo-ors o Trais] The 
evangelist gives no account of how 

Jesus and his parents became sepa- the teachers to silence and himself 
rated in Jerusalem. The sequel expound the law. In Luke the boy 
shews that the child himself had 
taken the initiative. 

44. lv rfj o-vvoSiy.] 'in the cara- amazement. The mother first finds 
van.' Here only in N.T. The word is words of enquiry and gentle rebuke. 

is a genuine learner. 

48. The parents are struck with 



49 ere. Kal elirev Trpbs avrov<f Tt on e^relre /xe; OVK fj 

/tat aurot 

JACT air- 

50 OTL ev rot? TOU vrarpo? /uov Se* el^at 

51 wvr]Kav TO prj/j,a o e\d\rjcrei> auTots. Kal 

TWV KOI rj\0sv et<? NaapeV, Kal rjv vTTOTaao-o/jievos avroi*;. 
Kal TJ /j,i')Tr)p avrov Stenjpei iravra TO, pr'jfMaTa ev TTJ Kap&ia 

52 auT/}?. Kal IVJCTOVS rrpoeKonreN TTJ ffotpia ical i}\iKia 

49. rt ore l^retre /xe ;] The in- 
terpretation of these words depends 
on the interpretation of eV rots TOU 
TTUT/JOS /xou below. If we interpret 
the latter to mean ' in my Father's 
house' the more probable render- 
ing the meaning is that it ought 
to have been unnecessary for the 
parents to search, they should have 
known where to look. But eV 7019 
TO? 7raTpi)9 /AOU might mean 'about 
my Father's affairs.' In that case 
this question will express surprise that 
they should have been at all anxious 
about his absence. This, however, 
seems to fit the sequel of the story 
less easily. The time had not yet 
come for Jesus to leave his parents' 
care and protection. 

iv Tots TOU 7raT/5os /J.OV cti/at] A 
possible rendering is 'to be about 
my Father's business.' Cf. I Tim. 
iv. 15 TUUTU /xeAeTa, Iv TOUTOIS 
urOi, and I Cor. vii. 33 TO. TOU 
Ktyn'on, but a better sense is given 
if we interpret ' to be in my Father's 
home.' See above. Cf. Gen. xli. 51 
e/<dAeo-ev Se 'Iaxr>)(/> TO 6'i/o/m TO? 
Mtti/^ao-tn) Aeyoji/ "OTI 
p. eTrot^crei/ o 6fu<s 
TWJ/ TToi/wi/ fjiov Kal iT<>.vTii>v 
TOU TTttT/jo? (ion. It may be 

doubted whether the narrator was 
conscious of an antithesis between 
6 Tran'/p oron in Mary's words (v. 48) 
and roil TTUT/WS /xon in the mouth 
of Jesus. 

50. /cai avrot ou <rvv?it<a.v'\ The 
story takes no account of what has 
been related above concerning Mary 
and Joseph at the time of the birth 
of Jesus. 

TO /Vr)jua o eAttA>/o~ci/ ai'roi?] /j/y/iu 
here means ' word ' or ' saying.' 

51. Jesus returns with his parents 
to Nazareth, and, in spite of his 
consciousness that he was God's son, 
he remains in subjection to his 
earthly parents. 

irdvTu. TU. ^////T] 'all that had 
happened,' as above in v. 19. 

52. The development of Jesus is 
again noted (cf. v, 40), and again with 
emphasis upon his wcx/wi. The con- 
eluding words of the chapter on the 
childhood of Christ echo once more 
the account of <the child Samuel: 
I Regn. ii. 26 Kal TO irutSiiptov 
^!a/zoin)A. cVo/)et!eTO, KCU dyaObv Kal 
peTa Kvpiov K<U p.era uvOpi'tTTinv. 

jy/ViKttx] The word may mean 
either 'stature' or ' age.' The former 
must be intended here, for it goes 
without saying that Jesus grew older. 


In the mind of the early Church, the preaching and baptizing of John was 
the beginning of the Christian Gospel. Cf. Acts i. 22, x. 37, xiii. 24. Both 
Mark and Q, Luke's principal sources, open with John's mission, and the 
same perspective is retained in the fourth Gospel. 


Luke, like Matthew, draws mainly on Q (vv. 7-9, 16-17), which is repro- 
duced with only slight variations in the two Gospels. The account of John's 
preaching in Q may be taken to preserve an original impression. " So may 
John in fact have spoken " (Ed. Meyer). Bultmann estimates the source very 
differently: the words were ' threats of judgement ' (Drohworle), which circu- 
lated in early Christian tradition and were " put into the mouth of the Baptist, 
because it was desired to relate a portion of his preaching of repentance. . . . 
It may be regarded as a pure accident that Jesus is not the speaker of these 
threats of judgement" (G.S.T. p. 71). This appears to be a very arbitrary 
treatment of the tradition. Though we have no reason to assume that the 
accounts in the synoptic Gospels give a verbatim report of the Baptist's words, 
there appears to be no good reason why we should not suppose these accounts 
to reproduce authentic tradition of his preaching. The proclamation of 
imminent judgement, the call for repentance, and the repudiation of national 
privilege recall classical passages of Hebrew prophecy, but the language is 
freshly minted. Josephus in his account of John (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) does not 
refer to the eschatological element in John's preaching, and he gives a some- 
what different interpretation of John's Baptism (see Additional Note), but his 
statement that John required of the Jews that they should practise SiKuioo-m'?} 
towards one another and ei!<re/:?eia towards God may be taken as a Greek 
rendering of the preaching of repentance. The statement in The Beginnings 
of Christianity, vol. i. p. 105, that " the true text of Josephus represents him 
as preaching first to a body of ' ascetics,' and afterwards to others," rests 
on a mistranslation of Josephus's Greek (see J.Th.S., Oct. 1921, p. 59). In 
Josephus, as in the Gospels, John addresses himself to the nation. 

A comparison of the full treatment of John in Q with the treatment in 
Mark (and in John) shews the natural tendency of Christians to regard John 
solely as a forerunner and witness of Christ. Luke is following Q, and the 
Marcan source naturally falls into the background, but thexinfluence of Mark 
may be traced in the wording of v. 3 and of v. 16 (vide ad loc.). It is note- 
worthy that Luke (with Matthew) omits here the quotation from Mai. iii. i 
(wrongly combined in Mark with Is. xl. 3 as a quotation from ' Isaiah the 
prophet'), perhaps because Q here gave Is. xl. 3 alone. Mai. iii. i is quoted 
of John in Lk. vii. 27 (=Mt. xi. 10 Q). Luke also drops the picturesque 
details of John's dress and food (Mk. i. 6 ; Mt. iii. 4). 

The matter of vv. 10-14 (^ ie questions of the multitude, the publicans, 
and the soldiers) is peculiar to Luke. Idiomatic Greek words in these verses 
(see notes) contrast with the Semitic colouring of the Q material and render 


it probable that these verses did not stand in Q. It is not necessary to 
assume a special source. Luke is interested in ' multitudes,' in publicans, 
and in soldiers, and it was worth while to shew that the same classes who 
were brought into contact with Jesus came also to John. The teaching of 
Jesus in the great sermon (c. vi.), his praise of the centurion (c. vii.), and his 
welcome of Zacchaeus (c. xix.) are prepared for ; but the replies of John to 
the different classes fall short of their counterparts in the life and teaching 
of Jesus. 

Luke has set his material in an editorial framework. He begins with 
an elaborate dating of the beginning of the preaching of John (v. i ). The 
quotation from Isaiah is extended to include a prophecy of salvation for all 
flesh (vv. 5, 6). John's proclamation of the mightier one to come is prefaced 
by a statement that it was delivered in answer to a question which was in 
all hearts as to whether John were himself the Christ. The suggestion that 
John was taken by some to be the Christ is only found elsewhere in the fourth 
Gospel (i. 20). Finally, Luke concludes the section with a statement of 
John's imprisonment by Antipas. This replaces the reference to John's 
imprisonment, omitted from the Marcan source, at the opening of the Galilean 
ministry (iv. 14). 

III. I EN ETEI Be TrenTe/caiSe/carra r>j<; rjrye/Aovtas Ti,fteptov 

i. Luke, writing as a historian, year. Ussher's theory (Annales V. 

fixes the date of John's mission in et N. Test. ed. Clericus 1722, pp. 

relation to general history by giving 579, 586), that the reign of Tiberius 

the year of the reigning Emperor was reckoned from the date (end 

and the contemporary rulers, civil of A.D. n or beginning of A.D. 12) 

and ecclesiastical, of Palestine and when he was associated with Augus- 

the neighbouring tetrarchies. Cf. tus as joint ruler, has been revived 

Thuc. ii. 2, of the beginning of by Wieseler, Zahn, and others. This 

the Peloponnesian War, TIJ> Se would enable us to reconcile more 

Tre/XTTTO) Koi SeKaru) eret, ITTI exactly the birth of Jesus under 

X/oto-tSos ci/ "Apyet TOTC Trei/T^/coi/ra Herod the Great (died 4 B.C.) with 

8volv Seoimx, err) lepajfAevrjs i<ai his being ' about thirty years of 

Aivrjo-iov Icjiopov iv 2?ra/)T>7 Kal age' at the time of his baptism by 

HvdoSupov eT6 8vo /A'/yi/us cip^oi/Tos John (iii. 23). But it does not 

3 'AOijva.LOL's. accord with the usage of other 

ev eret Se Trei/reKaiSeKu-np TT;? . writers or with the reckoning adopted 

1/ye/Aovias Tifiepiov Kuwra/bos] on coins. It has been shown by 

Augustus died August 19 A.D. 14. Eckhel (De doctr. numm. vet. iii. 

No doubt Luke, like Josephus (Ant. pp. 276 f.) that the evidence of 

xviii. 2. 2 ; 6. 10), reckons the reign Antiochene coins, which were sup- 

of Tiberius from this date, which posed to shew this reckoning, should 

gives A.D. 28-29 for his fifteenth not bo admitted. 



HOVTLOV TletXaTov 7-779 

I Terpaapftovvros 7-779 Ta\i\aias HpaiSov, 
rov aSeX(/>o{) avrov Terpaap^ovvros 7-779 ']rovpala^ 

ftoapas, Kal Av&aviov 7-779 'A/3eL\rjvf)S rerpa- 

eirtTpoirevovTos D Eus Chron. Pasch. procurante latt 

one e'6W/3X 7 /s (Archelaus) and two 
T6Tpaapxai (Antipas and Philip). 


rerpaap)(ovvTO<s rfjs 'Irovpaias Kal 
Tpa^oji/trtSos X'V a ] Philip, son of 
Herod the Great and Cleopatra, was 
the best of the Herods. He was 
tetrarch from 4 B.C. till his death 
in A.D. 33 or 34 over a territory 
including Trachonitis, Gaulonitis, 
Batanea and Panias (Ant. xvii. 8. i, 
xviii. 4. 6). The Ituraeans were a 
race of highland freebooters who 
had their headquarters in Lebanon 
(Strabo, pp. 753, 755, 756), which 
was no part of Philip's tetrarchy ; 
but Panias (refounded by Philip as 
Caesarea Philippi) had belonged to 
the Ituraean kingdom (Ant. xv. 
10. 3), and thus partly justifies 
Luke's description. Schiirer, G.J.V. 
i. pp. 426, 716. 

AvaravLOv TTJ<S 'AySeiAv^i/Tys rtTpa- 
ap)(ovvTo<s] On the identity of this 
Lysanias see Addit. Note. 

67T4 dpxtepecos " Avva Kal Katac/>a] 
The singular apxiepeios rightly sug- 
gests that there could only be one 
high priest, but the combination of 
the two names is strange. Loisy 
suggests that the words Kal Katac/>u 
may be a later addition. Like Mark, 
Luke does not give the name of 
Caiaphas in connexion with the trial 
of Jesus, and in Acts iv. 6 Annas 
is described as high priest. Luke 
appears not to have exact informa- 
tion as to the high priesthood. 
Annas (Ananos) had held office from 
A.D. 6-15, when he was deposed by 
Gratiis (An I. xviii. 2. 1-2). Joseph 



TX/S 'louSattts] fj-ycfjuov is a general 
term which may be used of sub- 
ordinate governors (Jos. Ant. xviii. 
3. i UtAuTos 6 rrjs 'Iov8ata<s r)ye[jut>\>) 
as well as of emperors (Ant. xviii. 
2. 2). For ?/ye/zoi/ei'oi'Tos D substi- 
tutes the exact term e7ruy>07reiW- 
TOS. Pilate was eTrtrpoTro? = pro- 
curator of Judaea and Samaria 
under the imperial legalus pro prae- 
tore of Syria. He was in office 
A.D. 26-36. Judaea and Samaria 
had been under the rule of a pro- 
curator since the deposition of 
Archelaus in A.D. 6. 

rrs a 

Herod Antipas, son of 
Herod the Great and Malthake, 
became tetrarch of Galilee and 
Peraea in 4 B.C. on the death of his 
father (Ant. xvii. n. 4; B.J. ii. 
6. 3). He remained in office till 
A.D. 39, when -he was banished by 
Caligula in consequence of an attempt 
to exchange his title of tetrarch for 
the higher title of king. Mark (vii. 
14, 26) speaks of him as /JacriAei's, 
but this is an inaccuracy. It is 
conceivable that Luke connected the 
title TT/>aa/)^v;s with the four terri- 
tories which he specifies. This 
would accord with the original usage 
of the term (Eur. Ale. 1154, cf. 
Strabo 430 of Thessaly; Strabo 
56o, 567 of the divisions of Galatia). 
But it had come to be used as a 
general term for a subordinate native 
ruler (B.J. i. 24. 5 ; Hor. Sal. i. 3. 
12). The kingdom of Herod the 
Great had been partitioned between 


2 apyovvros, eVl ap^iepews " Kvva KOI K.aLa<j)a, eyevero 

3 Oeov eVl Iwdvrjv rov Za^apiov vlov ev rfj epij/Ata. /cal 
i1\6ev et9 tracrav Trepl^capov rov *\op$dvov Kypvcrcrajv (3d- 

4 Trria/jba fjberavoias et? atyecriv a^apriMv, o>? yeypaTrrai ev 


4 airoi/] 
rov Qfov 


THN O'AON Kypfoy, 
noieTTe TAG TpiBoyc 
D: for our God syrr : dei nostri Iren (lat) cf. LXX Is. xl. 3 

Caiaphas, who tried the Lord (Mt. 
xxvi. 57 ; Jo. xviii. 24), held oGSce 
A.D. 18-36 (Ant. xviii. 2. 2 ; 4. 3). 
Ace. to Jo. xviii. 13 he was son-in- 
law to Annas. Five sons of Annas 
held the high priesthood, one before 
and four after Caiaphas. Annas 
doubtless retained great influence, 
and this may account for Luke's 

J/ t" /)' > '^^T' T 

2. eyei>To p'r)/jia tfeou TTI iwavryi'j 
The phraseology, which is peculiar to 
Luke, recalls LXX. Cf. Jer. i. i TO 
pfjfAa rov Oeov o eyei/ero CTTI 'lepejui'ui/ 
rov rov XeA,KtOT. 

ey r>/ epr//Mi)] In all the Gospels the 
words of Isaiah xl. 3 c/>wv)) /^OWJ/TOS ei/ 
T?; ep'ijpy are applied to John, and 
in the three synoptists John is 
associated with r) epijfios. But the 
topography is vague. Ace. to Mark 
John was baptizing ev TJ; ep^pi). 
Cf. Lk. vii. 24 = Mt. xi. 7 (Q). The 
Jordan valley, which is not sandy 
desert, is described as c/arj/uo, in Jos. 
B.J. iii. 10. 7. Mt. defines the desert 
as )] cpy/JLOs T';}S 'lovSams, but this 
did not border on the Jordan. Lk. 
represents John as receiving his call 
eV T// ep//^ no doubt the desert of 
Judaea W. of the Dead Sea, cf. i. 
80 and then coming out to preach 
throughout the valley of the Jordan. 
Schmidt, R.G.J. p. 22, thinks that all 
the references to ' desert ' in con- 
nexion with John are due to the 

literary influence of Is. xl. But it is 
hard to suppose that the words in 
Lk. vii. 24 (Q) derive from a purely 
literary motif. 

3. Kr)pvo-o~(tiv . . . afj-aprMv"] Ex- 
actly as in Mark. 

On John's-baptism see Additional 

p,(Tuvot.a] The Creek word is not 
used in LXX (except 5 times in 
Wisdom Lit.). Here it will represent 
Aram, nin = Heb. 3K? ' turn.' John 
reasserts the idea, fundamental to the 
prophetic religion of O.T., of 'turning' 
away from sin (i Ki. viii. 47, xiii. 33; 
Ps. Ixxviii. 34; Is. vi. 10; Ezek. iii. 
19, etc.) and towards God (2 Ki. 
xxiii. 25 ; Amos iv. 6, 8, etc.). 
The etymological meaning of the 
Greek word 'change of mind' 
should not be pressed, /-lerai/oia, 
/xerai'oeiV can be used in prof. Gk. 
to express specifically 'repentance' 
after wrongdoing. Thuc. iii. 36. 3 ; 
Attains II. in Dittenberger, Or. Inscr. 
751 deupwv ovv 
Koras re lirl TO?$ 
KrA.. ; Plut. De soil. anim. 961 D; 
Jos. Anl. xiii. n. 3, 

4-6. Lk. like Mt. omits here the 
Marcan citation of Mai. iii. i (cf., 
however, vii. 27 = Mt. xi. 10). Ho 
extends the quotation from Is. xl. 
no doubt in order to include the 
promise of universal salvation in the 
last line. As in Mk. (and Mt.) 



K&I G'CTAI r& CKoAiA eic eyQeiAC 

eic 6AoY*c Aef<\c- 

TTACA CAP? 76 ccoTi-fpiON TOY Qeoy. 



ovv roi? etcTropevo/jievois 


ftaTTTicrOrjvai, vir 7 
V/JLLV (frvyeiv UTTO 
/u-eX-XoucTT/? 0/37179; TroirjcraTe o5i> Kapirov^ a%iov<$ 8 
KOI /jurj ap^rjcrOe \eyeiv ev eavTols Harepa 

7 WIT' avrov] evwTTiov avrov D; coram ipso b l*q r ; in conspectu eius de; to 
him to be baptized syrr ( ; 'syr.cur om to be baptized 

7b-9 with i6b-i7 are almost verb- 
ally identical with Mt. iii. 7b-i2 (Q). 
Mark gives only an equivalent for the 
prophecy of ' the mightier one ' 
(vv. i6b-i7). 

Fcvv/ifJMTa exioVojv] ' Vipers.' 
yew. is not to be pressed. (Nestle", 
Z.N.T.W., 1913, pp. 267 f.) 

T'rjs ^ueAAoi.'crrys opyrjs] ' The wrath 
to come' (or 'the judgement') is a 
ruling idea of the Jewish religion 
(cf. Enoch 90; Strack-Billerbeck, i. 
p. 115; Volz. Jud. EscJi. pp. 268 f.) 
having its source in the prophetic 
teaching (Is. xiii. 9, xxx. 27 ; Zeph. 
ii. 2 ; Mai. iii. 2, iv. i, 5). It is 
presupposed by Jesus (Lk. x. 14 = Mt. 
xi. 22 ; Lk. xi. 31 = Mt. xii. 42) and 
by Paul (Rom. i. 18, ii. 5, v. 9; 
i Thess. i. 10 'Irja-ouv ruv pv6fj.ei'ov 
>j[j.u.s CK rrys opyrjs TJyS e/oxoftei'?ys). 

8. TTOtvycrare ovt' /ca^TroiV] Semitic. 
Gen. i. ii ff., cf. Mk. iv. 32 ; James, 
iii. 12. The Gk. text of [Aristot.] 
De pfanlis adduced by Klostermann 
and McNeile on Mt. iii. 8 as authority 
for the phrase in Gk. is a mediaeval 
retrans. of a Latin vers. of an Arabic 
vers. of an orig. Gk. work assigned 
by Meyer to Nicolas of Damascus. 
See Christ, Griech. Lit.-Gesch. p. 486. 

up^ricrOt] Mt. <So?yre. A weak use 
of up\ofi.aL is frequent in Luke, 
though he tends to avoid Mark's use 

Tyu/3oi.'9 TO'P OQV ?y/xwv of LXX 
becomes ras Tpt/?oi>s CU'TOI>, which 
lea,ves open the application of 'K.vpiov 
to the Messiah. (TOII Oeov rj/j-wv was 
read here by syrr, and is 
defended by Zahn as original, but it 
is probably due to assimilation to 
LXX.) Otherwise the text follows 
LXX with minor variations and the 
omission of a clause /ecu o 
''] Soa Kvfnov before KOU o'l 
The original prophecy (in which ' in 
the desert ' is to be constructed with 
'prepare,' not with 'that cries') 
calls for the preparation of a high 
road by which captive Israel may 
cross a literal desert. Luke intends a 
moral interpretation of the material 

7. Mt. makes John address the 
Pharisees and Sadducees. The com- 
bination , wh ich is certainly not original 
in Mt. xvi. i (cf. Mk. viii. n), is 
likely to be editorial in Mt. iii. 7. 
If, as seems probable, Lk. preserves 
the original sense of Q, John was 
represented as rebuking the super- 
ficial repentance of the multitude. 
But o^/Voi are characteristic of Luke:' 
xi. 15 ( = Mt. xii. 24) ; xi. 29 ( = Mt. 
xii ; 38, 39); xii. 54 (cf. Mt. xvi. i). 

VTT avrov] The reading e/jnrpou-Oev 
i>ToP, suggesting that the penitents 
baptized themselves, may be original. 


Tt3 yar) e^ozm, KOI 6 e^cov fipa>fjiara 



TTpo? avrov AiSacr/cttXe, rt Troujcray/uiev ; 

9 /caW om a ff 2 vg (A al) Iren lat - codd -P lcr Orig 



TOV AjSpad/ju, Xe /f yo> jap v^lv on Suisarai 6 
9 e/c TWZ; \iQwv TOVTWV eyelpai, reicva TO> 'AjSpad/ji. 7/877 Se 
/cat 7; a^ivrf Trpo? rr/z/ pi^av TWV Sei>Bpa)i> Kelrat,' TTCLV ovv 
&&v$pov fj,r) TTOLOVV fcapiTov [/caA,ov] eWoTrrerat /cat et? 7ry> 

10 (Bd\\erai. KOI eTrrjpwrcov avrov 01 o-^Koi A^yoz/re? Tt 

11 ovv TTOirjacofMev ; airoKpi6el^ Se eXejev avTols O e 


of the vb. as a mere auxiliary. The 
weak use may be, but is not neces- 
sarily, an Aramaism. See J. VV. 
Hunkin, J.Th.S. xxv. p. 390. Norden 
(Anlike Kunsl-Prosa, ii. 487) regards 
apr)(rde here as a stylistic improve- 
ment of an original So^/re. ... TOP' 'Afipadfj.] For 
the assumption of national privilege 
here repudiated cf. Jo. viii. 33 ; Rom. 
ii. 17-29 ; Justin, Dial. 140 ot 8i<5d- 
(r/caA.06 u/xwv . . . v7roA.u/A/Jai/oi/Tes 


Kara, cra/oKa TOU 'A^Spaa/x o?<T6, KUI/ 
cucrc Kat aTrwrrot Kat 
Trpos TOV 0eoi>, '/} f3d.tnXf.ia 
So^?/o-eTat ; Strack-Biller- 
beck, i. 119. 

ruts kiQiuv Toi'iTwi'] These lifeless 
stones. There was perhaps a play 
on the words N^2 and N^HS ' sons ' 
and ' stones.' 

9. I'jSr) 5e /cat KTA.] The judgement 
is imminent. For the metaphor of 

the axe cf. Is. x. 33. 8c /cat (Mt. 
oe) is very common in Lk. to give 
emphasis, cf. v. 12. The omission 
of KuAov improves the sense. Every 
unfruitful tree is to be felled. 

10. eTn/pojTwy] The imperf. here 
does not imply repetition (so 
Plummer) and does not differ in 
force from the aorist tTirav in v. 12. 
Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, 57 ; 
Blass, 57. 4. 

11. John's plain injunction of 
care for the 'needy (cf. Is. Iviii. 7) 
may be contrasted with the para- 
doxical teaching of Jesus, vi. 29. 
Two X<,T<OI/S might be worn together 
in travelling- (Ant. xvii. 5, 7) but 
were not both essential (Mk. vi. 9 
and par.). 

12, 13. John's preaching reaches 
members of a class which Jewish 
orthodoxy regarded as outside the 
pale. He enjoins upright dealing but 
does not require that they should 
abandon their profession. TeAtoi/ai 
or 5r///,ocrt(ovat (from Lat. publicani) 
were collectors of dues, which were 
farmed out by the state (Schiirer, 
i. p. 478). The TeAuWi of the N.T. 
will be in the main subordinate 
agents. Zacchaeus (xix. 2) is an 
J.^)(iTeA(oi/r;s. .Their opportunities 
for exaction are well illustrated by a 
Palmyrene inscr. of A.D. 137 (Ditt. 
Or. Inscr. 629) : the tribute payable 
was regulated partly by law and 
partly by custom. Disputes between 
merchants and reAuWt led the f$ovX-i) 
of Palmyra to draw up a fixed tariff 
of the tribute due by custom and 
to authorise the 



TOV /jiio~0ov/j.voi'. reXwvat as a class 
were held in low esteem both by 
Jews (Mk. ii. 15; Mt. xi. i9 = Lk. 
vii. 34 ; quotations in S.-B. i. p. 378) 



7T/30? avrovs 




7r\eoi> trapa TO Siareray/jLevov VJMV 
7rrjp(*)Ta)i> Se avrov Kai crTparevofJievoi \eyovT6S 14 
Aral el'jrev avTois MrjSeva Sia- 
KOI apKeltrOe rot? otywvLoL<$ 
TlpoaBoKWVTOS Se roO \aov KOI 8ia\oyio- 1 5 
irdvTwv ev rat? /capSiais CLVTWV Trepl TOV \wdvov, 
f TTore avro? 17} 6 %pia"TO<;, aTreicpivaTO \6ycov TTCLCTIV o 1 6 
^yo) /zez> vSart, /3a7TTL^a) vfjuas- ep^erau Se 6 
fiov, ov OVK elfu Ircavos \vcrai TOV l^dvra ra>v 
Bij /jbdrwv avrov' avros v/z-a? fiaTrria-et, ev Trvevjuari, ayia> 

16 aytw otn 63 64 Clem Tevt Aug 

and Gentiles. Herodas vi. 64 TOU? 
ya/o reAwvas Trcxcra 
Lucian, Nekyo. n 
/36<ri<oi KOU re/Vwp'at /cat 

<TVKO<f)<ivTaL KT\. 

14. There is nothing to shew 
whether the soldiers are to be thought 
of as Jewish soldiers of Antipas or as 
Romans under the Procurator. La- 
grange suggests that they were armed 
supporters of thereA.<ui/Gu and that /cat 
>//ueis implies ' we too who are engaged 
in this business.' 8tacreteti/ = ' rob 
by violence' (of. 3 Mace. vii. 21), 
cn>;co</>ui'TetV ; rob by false accusation.' 
For the combination cf. Antiph. Or. 

Vi. 43 T/30I'S TiOV VTTGvO VVOiV (7/.e 

/cat cniKo<jidi'Ti ; P.Par. 61 (Notices 
et Extraits, xviii. 2, 351) of com- 
plaints against re/Xuii/at //.aAtcrra 5e 
Kara TWI/ vrpus rats reAcoi'tats ei/rvy- 
)(tti/oi/ra)i/, 7re/f)t re Statretcr/iwi/ /cat 
Tru^u/Xoyeuoi/, ei/twi/ Se /cat <TI;/CO</>UI/- 
Tety^at irpo^f.pop.'(.v^v. For John's 
advice cf. Josephus, Fito 47 <n>i'e- 
/joiiAeuov TT/JOS /XTySeP'a /Aryre TroAe/zeti/ 
pyre apirayrf [to \vvew ras X e fy )as 

UpKOVHtvoWS TOl? </X)StOt9. 

15. etVy] The optat. in indirect 
question (peculiar to Luke in N.T.) 
gives " the tone of remoteness and 
uncertainty," Moulton, Prol. p. 199. 

1 6. aireKpivaTo] In Bibl. Gk. aor. 
middle of aVo/c/cKi/o/xat generally 
yields to passive. But see also 
xxiii. 9 ; Mt. xxvii. 12 ; Mk. xiv. 61 ; 
Jo. v. 17, 19; and in LXX, 3 Ki. 
ii. i ; i Chron. x. 13; Ezek. ix. ii. 

John foretells the coming of one 
mightier than himself, for whom he 
is unworthy to perform even the 
duties of a slave. 6 io-,\'iy)OTe/oos] 
Not ' that mightier one ' but ' one 
who is mightier.' The use of the 
art. is Semitic. See Wellh. Einl. p. 19. 
ov ... avrov also a Semitism. Cf. 
Mk. vii. 25. 

Avovxi . . . avTor] Mt. TV. vTroSi^- 
pxra ySacrracrai. So prob. Q. Lk. 
here agrees with Mk. (with omission 
of /cityas). To undo and to carry 
shoes or sandals was the duty of a 
slave. Cf. Plaut. Trin. ii. i. 22 
' sandaligerulae.' 

avTu<s v/ias /3aTTTL(rei cr Tn'eiyxart 
dyt(o Kal Trvpi] dyuo is possibly not 
orig. in Lk. See crit. note. Mark 
has /3a7rrurei I'/xas Tri>ev/j.aTi dyt'w 
(without /cat TTU/H) and does not give 
the next verso. A similar form of 
the saying is ascribed to Jesus, Acts 
i. 5, xi. 1 6. The saying in this form 
is readily interpreted as a prophecy 
of the outpouring of the Spirit upon 
the ^Church, and there is, as Lagrango 



17 Kal TTvpi' ov TO ITTVOV ev Trj X i P^ avr v ^icuKaOupai 
a\wva avTov Kal crvvayayeiv TOV crlrov et9 T^V aTrod 

1 8 avTov, TO Se ayypov fcara/cava-ei irvpl aerySeoTft). IToAXa 
/jiev ovv teal erepa TrapaKaXojv evrjyyeX.i^eTo TOV \aov 

190 $e Hpcu&?79 6 TTpadp%r)<;, eXey^o/jjevos UTT' avrov irepl 
'HpfpSidSo? T?/? yvvai./co<? TOV aSeX<jboO avTOV KOI irepl 

2O TrdvTwv 

7ror)<rev iroviipwv 

argues (against Dibelius, Z)te vorchrist- 
liche Uberlieferung von Johannes dem 
Tdufer), no impossibility in supposing 
that John did foretell a baptism by 
'the mightier one' with Spirit. In 
Is. xi. 2 the future Davidic king is 
endowed with the spirit of the Lord 
(and this passage had not been 
overlooked, Ps. Sol. xvii. 42 ; En. 
xlix. 3, Ixii. 2), while Joel iii. 1-5 
speaks of the effusion of the Spirit 
in the day of the Lord. But the 
combination of 'fire' and 'the spirit' 
is not easy. Luke himself may not 
improbably have interpreted both 
of Pentecost (cf. Acts ii. 3), but the 
' fire ' in John's mouth will mean the 
fire of the j udgement day as suggested 
by the next verse. Note, however, 
that there the fire is purely destruc- 
tive. For ' baptism by fire ' the 
thought of fire as a testing as well as 
a destructive force seems required, as 
in I Cor. iii. 13 CKCUTTOU TO e/>yov 

OTTOtOl/ TT6 TO 7TV/3 OCUTO 8oKlfJ,O.O~l. 

Cf. Is. i. 25, iv. 4 ; Zech. xiii. 9 ; 
Mai. iii. 2, 3. On the whole it seems 
likely that the introduction of the 
Holy Spirit in this connexion is a 
Christian gloss and that an earlier 
form of the tradition spoke only of 
'baptism by fire.' (So Wellh., 

17. TmW] The winnowing shovel 
with which the farmer throws the grain 
against the wind to separate it from 
the chaff. 

SiaKaOapat T")]v a\(ova] Cf. 
Alciphr. Ep. ii. 23 (iii. 26) apn 

'S?;9> TrpoGeflrjKev 
fjioi TT/y uAo) 8i,u,Ka0'>'/()(t,vTt> Kal TO 

TTTVOV a7TOTl$e/iei/<0. Mt. Kal OIUI<U0- 

apiti ... Kal crvi'u^a. The infini- 
tives 8iaKadupai . . . /cat o-vvayaytiv 
will be Lucan stylistic improvements. 
8La.Ka6ai,peiv is used by class, writers, 
8i.a.Ka,0api^iv is late Greek only. 
For the aorist form f.Ka6apa (class. 
fKaOijpa) cf. I Cor. v. 7 e/<K 
B.G.H. xxvih (1903) p. 73 79 

or/?CTT<M] The adj. is prob. introd. 
into the parable, where it is not 
strictly relevant, by reminiscence of 
the ' unquenchable fire ' of Gehenna. 
Is. Ixvi. 24; Mk. ix. 43 f. 

1 8. evijyyeXi^To] John's teaching 
had culminated in a prophecy of the 
coming of the Christ and can there- 
fore be regarded by Luke as 'good 
news.' The noun evayyeAtoi/ docs 
not occur in the Gospel, but the verb 
is frequent in the Lucan writings. 

19. TOV uSeAc/jo{i avTov] Erro- 
neously named Philip in Mk. vi. 17. 
Herod Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea, 
married not Herodias but her 
daughter Salome. Luke's omission 
of the mistaken name is probably 

20. 7rpoo~e0r)K6i>] This use of 
7r/)o(TTt'#r///,i with a direct obj. and 
CTTI c. dat. followed directly by a 
verb in the indie, explaining the 
object is quite distinct in meaning 
from the Hebraising use of the verb 
with an infin. ( = C]D I> ) frequent in 
the LXX and found in xx. IT, 12 
and Acts xii. 3. "He added this 


KOI rovro eVl Traonv, KareickeLGev rbv 'Itoaz/i/z/ ev (f)V\aKr). 

to all his other evil deeds, viz. he Machaerus, a fortress near the Dead 
shut up ... " KareKAeurev] At Sea, Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 2. 

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS (iii. 21, 22) 

Luke reverts to the public ministry of John to recount his baptism of 

An account of the baptism seems to have been contained in Q as well 
as in Mark. Slight agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (Mt. 
7 ) v.M\Ot](rav ot ovpavoi, Lk. a vew^Ofj i>ui rov ovpavov, Mk. o"X l ~ 
o//.ei/ous rovs ovpavovs ; Mt., Lk. ITT avrov, Mk. ets auToy) are not 
in themselves decisive, but an account of the baptism seems required to 
connect Q's account of the ministry of John with the subsequent narrative 
of the temptation of Jesus. 

Ed. Meyer (i. p. 83) holds that authentic information with regard to the 
life of Jesus starts with the public ministry in Galilee ; the narrative of the 
temptation he regards as ' mythical,' and he doubts the historicity of the 
baptism of Jesus by John. But there are other passages in the Gospels which 
testify to the decisive importance of John's mission in the eyes of his successor : 
Lk. vii. 24 f. =Mt. xi. 7 f. ; Mk. xi. 30 =Mt. xxi. 25 ; Lk. xx. 4 (" The Baptism 
of John, was it from heaven or from men ? "). Of the latter passage Meyer 
says that it is ' certainly authentic.' If so, it seems unlikely that Jesus had 
not himself been baptized by John. And if he was baptized, it is a priori 
probable that his baptism was a crisis in his life and was connected with the 
call to his mission. 

It is a further question how the narratives in the Gospels stand related 
to the original circumstances. Comparative study of the Gospels reveals a 
tendency to transform the event into a public attestation of Jesus as the 
Christ. In Mark we read that ' Jesus saw the heavens rent,' and the voice 
from heaven addresses Jesus alone. Luke's account is not essentially different, 
though the opening of the heavens is stated directly as an event, and an 
additional touch (ato/ian/ao et'Sei) emphasises the external reality of the 
appearance of the Spirit. But in Matthew the divine utterance is changed 
from the second person into the third and thus seems to be addressed to the 
bystanders rather than to Jesus. The fourth Evangelist omits the actual 
baptism and gives only the Baptist's testimony to the abiding of the Spirit 
upon his greater successor. The Marcan account is clearly the most primitive. 
If it rests on authentic information, it must be derived from Jesus himself. 


But as Origen pointed out (Contra Celsum i. 48, quoted by Meyer i. p. 84), 
Scripture does not say that Jesus himself reported the opening of the heavens 
and the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove, and this supposed Trept- 
avToAoyta is not, Origen maintains, in harmony with the character of him 
who said KU.V eycu etVw Trept e/xunTo?, >/ fj.aprvp[a /zou OVK ecmv dA^^7ys. 
If, with Origen and E. Meyer, we regard it as improbable that the narratives 
depend on a .communication of Jesus, we must take them to represent 
pictures which believers formed of the beginning of his mission as Son 
of God. Such a hypothesis does not involve the conclusion that the 
pictures were creations of the pure imagination, for (i) there is reason 
to believe that historically the evangelists are right in connecting the 
beginning of the Gospel with the baptism of John, and (2) the estimate of 
the person of Jesus, which the narratives reflect, had its origin in the 
impression which he made upon his followers both before and after his 

For Jesus, as for others, John's baptism will mark the beginning of a new 
life, but " the antithesis to an earlier state of sinfulness need not be pressed " 
(Klostermann on Mt. iii. 14). Jesus left with his disciples an impression that 
he was ' without sin,' and his recorded teaching does not suggest the con- 
verted penitent. If the baptism of God's messenger brought him a unique 
conviction that he was son of God, it is congruous to suppose that the ante- 
cedent conditions had also been unique. That Jesus should have submitted 
to a ' baptism of repentance ' was early felt to be a difficulty. Matthew seeks 
to remove the objection by the dialogue between Jesus and John (iii. 14, 15), 
and for another and far weaker apologetic explanation see Ev. sec. Hebr. 
apud Jerome, Adv. Pelag. iii. 2 Ecce mater Domini et fratres eius dicebant ei : 
Joannes Baptista baptizat in remissionem peccatorum : eamus et baptizemur ab 
eo. Dixit autem eis : Quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer. ab eo ? Nisi forte 
hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est. Luke, too, was probably conscious of a 
difficulty. See note on 'v. 21. 

Neither Mark nor Q contained birth narratives, and the place and import- 
ance of the baptism and of the heavenly voice in these narratives fit in with 
the belief that it was at the baptism that Jesus became Son of God. A 
similar form of belief perhaps underlies the Johannine writings (cf. Reinhold 
Seeberg 6 Aoyos crap eyevero, Festgabe A. von Harnack, 1921, pp. 263 f.), and 
is reflected in the history of the Epiphany festival (cf. Usener, Das Weihnachts- 
fest, pp. 18 f.). The preceding birth narratives in Matthew and Luke rob the 
baptism of some of the significance which it carried in Mk. and Q. It is 


noteworthy that in the primitive Christological formulation reproduced in 
Ignat. Eph. xviii. 2, Smyrn. i. i, the baptism still has its place alongside the 
birth, while in the Old Roman Creed the birth has displaced the baptism. 
Cf. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (2nd ed.), pp. 264 f. 

'EijeveTo Be ev TOJ (BaTTTicrOrivai, airavTa TOV \aov K.OLI 21 
'\TJO-OV SaTTTia-devTos Kal Trpoo-evyoaevov avewydfivau TOV 

it i /V * / v * 

ovpavov Kal KaTafirjvai TO irvev/jba TO ciyiov aw^aTiKw etSet 22 
ft>9 Trepicrrepav CTT avTOv, Kal (fxavrjv e ovpavov <yeveo-0ai 

21. ei> T<O c. infin. of time a 
Hebraism. Blass, 71. 7; Moulton, 
p. 249. /3a.TTTi(r6rji/ai] The aor. 
retains its force as in ii. 27, " when 
all the people had been baptized." 
Cf. Introduction, p. Ixxix. 

KO.L 'I^crou f3aTTTicrOevTO < s Kal 
irpoarev\ofjitvov\ The conjunction of 
the gen. absol. with the preceding 
clause is very awkward. .Luke may 
have been conscious of difficulties in 
the baptizing of Jesus by John, and for 
this reason throws the baptism itself 
into a subordinate participial clause, 
reserving the infins. dep. on the main 
vb. eyei/ero to recount the descent of 
the Spirit and the voice from heaven. 
The aor. part. fiaTrTivQkvTo<s con- 
trasted with the present part. Trpocr- 
ev)(o/x,vov makes the descent of the 
Spirit coincident with the prayer of 
Jesus, not with his baptism, which 
has already been completed. The 
same motive is perhaps at work here 
which led the fourth Ev. to omit 
the actual baptism. Luke emphasises 
the place of prayer in the life of 
Jesus, v. 16, vi. 12, ix. 18, 28, 29, 
xi. i, and (with Mk. and Mt.) xxii. 
41. liveipxQrjvat] uvoix$?yi/GU D. For 
the double augment see Blass, 15. 7. 

22. TO ay tot/] A Lucan addition. 
crco/zttTt/co) et'Set] A Lucan addition, 
which shews that the Ev. understood 
Mark, prob, correctly, to compare 
the visible manifestation of the Spirit, 
as well as his manner of descent, to 

that of a dove. The dove was a 
type of gentleness, cf. Mt. x. 16. 
Rabbinic lit. often compares Israel 
to a dove. In the Talmud (Chagiga 
15 a) Ben Zoma, a younger con- 
temporary of the Apostles, is quoted 
as comparing the ' brooding ' of the 
Spirit in Gen. i. 2 to the brooding of 
a dove (Tosefta Chag. ii. 5 gives 
' eagle ' with reference to Dt. xxxii. 
ii). A late Targum on Cant. ii. 12 
interprets the turtle-dove of the Holy 
Spirit. In Bab. Talm. Beracholh 3a 
a heavenly voice Bath-Qol is heard 
moaning as a dove. This would help 
to explain the comparison here, but 
" in the older rabbinic literature there 
is no passage in which the dove is 
clearly a symbol of the Holy Ghost," 
S.B. i. p. 125 (see also Abrahams, 
Studies, ist Ser. p. 47). Compare, 
however, Philo, Quis rer. div. her. 127 
(on Gen. xv. 9) ->} #ta o-o(/>ia . . . 
crvfjifioXiKus . . . Tpvyuv /caAetrat 
. . . Trepio-repii ravTijv (i.e. ryv av- 

e oi/oai'ou 

KrA.] A voice from heaven pro- 
claims to Jesus that he is son of 
God. (Cf. the voice at the Trans- 
figuration, ix. 35.) The best attested 
version of the words agrees with Mk., 
but D lat.vt (but not e and appar- 
ently not Cyprian see Burkitt, 
J.Th.S. xxvi. p. 291), Justin Clem. 
Al. give the words of Ps. ii. 7 wos 
/J.QV ei a-v- 0-i'ip.f.pov yeyei/i/7/Kcx ere. 




e vto9 fJ>ov 'yaTTT/ro?, ev cro 

22 ffv ei . . . eu5oK77<7d] vios JJ.QV t <ru eyw <rr)/j.fpov yeyevvrjKa ere D a b al codd.ap. 
Aug Justin Clem Meth Juvenc Ambst Tycon 

Harnack and Streeter argue that this 
is the original reading, which was 
afterwards felt to be open to doc- 
trinal objection, and therefore assimi- 
lated to the reading of [Mt. and] 
Mk. ; also that it was probably 
derived by Lk. from Q. On the 
other hand, the reading of D may 
well be due to assimilation to the 
text of the Psalm. Justin, who knew 
the other Gospels, clearly welcomes 
a text which agrees with the 
words of the O.T. (Dial 88). Also,, 
if the ordinary reading is due to 
assimilation, assimilation to Mt. 
(euro's ccrri) rather than to Mk. 
(a-v e?) might have been expected. 
But the reading in Mt. iii. 17 is 
uncertain. D a syr.vt Iren.pap. 
Oxyrrh give crv et. (See Burkitt, 
Ev. d. Meph. ad loc.) There is no 
consciousness on the part of Justin or 
of Clement or of Methodius or of 
Augustine that the reading might be 
heretical in tendency. That the 
words of the Psalm were currently 
applied to Christ in the Apostolic 

Church is seen from Heb. i. 5 (where 
they seemed to refer to the pre- 
existent Christ) and Acts xiii. 33 
(where they are referred to the 
resurrection, cf. Rom. i. 4). The 
Marcan version of the words at 
the baptism is reminiscent of O.T. 
language and thought (cf. LXX 
Hab. ii. 4; Is. Ixii. 4; Ps. cxlix. 4, 
cli. 5 OVK evSoKTjcrev eV aurots 1 Kvptos 
of David's brothers), but appears 
not to be quotation. The closest 
parallel is the version of Is. xlii. i in 
Mt. xii. 18 (which differs from LXX) 
o ayctTrr/Tos ftov vv evSoKrjcrev ?/ 
'/^'X 1 ? I J - OV - ~~ ttyaTTT/ros in the 
Heavenly Voice may bear the well- 
attested meaning of ' only,' ' unique,' 
in which case it will be constructed 
with o IHOS fj.ov ' my only son ' (C. H. 
Turner, J.Th.S. xxvii. pp. H3ff.). 
Or it may be a distinct title ' the 
beloved' used to designate the Mes- 
siah, cf. Eph. i. g ; Ep. Barn. iii. 6, iv. 
3, 8 (Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, 
p. 229). So the Old Syriac version 
'My Son and My Beloved.' 


The baptism of Jesus by John marked the beginning of the work of Jesus, 
and the evangelist feels this to be a suitable place at which to introduce a 
genealogy shewing the descent of Jesus, through David and Abraham, from 
the father of the human race. 

That Jesus was of Davidic descent is asserted by St. Paul (Rom. i. 3), 
assumed in St. Mark (x. 48), and implied in the Acts (ii. 30) by St. Peter. It is 
probable that this genealogy and the independent and incompatible genealogy 
in Mt. i. were both constructed in Jewish Christian circles to substantiate the 
Davidic descent. Matthew traces the descent through the direct royal line, 
and Luke by a side line through David's son Nathan (2 Sam. v. 14 ; i Chron. 


iii. 5, xiv. 4). The two lists coincide again at the names of Zerubbabel, the 
founder of the second Temple, and his father Salathiel, and then again part 
company until they reach Mary's husband Joseph. The construction of the 
Lucan genealogy may have been influenced by the curse of Jeremiah (xxii. 28, 
30, xxxvi. 30-31) on Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin, the latter of whom 
appears in Matthew (as in i Chron. iii. 17) as father of Salathiel, while the 
reference to the family of Nathan in Zech. xii. 12 perhaps suggested a line of 
descent through that son of David. 

The genealogy as we have it depends upon the LXX, for the name of 
Kati'dfjL (om. D) as father of Sala and son of Arphaxad (v. 36) is found in the 
LXX, but is absent from the Hebrew of Gen. xi. 24. 

Matthew traces the descent of Jesus from Abraham only. Possibly Luke 
is himself responsible for extending his genealogy to Adam. In any case it is 
in harmony with the spirit of his Gospel to bring out the relationship of Jesus 
to the whole human family in virtue of his descent from the first man, who 
was son of God. 

In both Gospels the descent is traced through Joseph, not through Mary, 
and it may be safely inferred that the circles in which the genealogies originated 
regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph, u>s evo/jLLfcro will be an addition to 
cover a discrepancy with the circumstances of the conception as they had been 
related in c. i. 

.The discrepancies between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were from 
early times a source of difficulty. From a letter of Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 2,20) 
to a certain Aristides (fragm. apud Routh, Eel. Sacr. ii. pp. 228 f.) we learn that 
some accounted for the differences by the theory that the genealogies were 
symbolic that of Matthew representing Christ's royal character, and that of 
Luke his priesthood. Africanus himself (apud Eus. H.E. i. 7) argued that in 
virtue of the law of Levirate marriage (Deut. xxv. 5 f.) a man might be 
spoken of as son either of his actual father or of his mother's first husband. 
Thus Joseph was really the son of Eli, but by law the son of Eli's brother 
Jacob. But Jacob and Eli were uterine brothers only, Jacob's father being 
descended from David through Solomon, and Eli's father being descended 
from David through Nathan. " Although we can urge no testimony in its 
support," says Africanus, " we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any 
case the Gospel states the truth." The theory advocated by Annius of Viterbo 
(c. A.D. 1490) that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary can be traced back to 
the fifth century (see Lagrange, ad loc.), but its support in patristic interpreta- 
tion is slender. 



Kal auTo? 



24 TOU MaT#T 
TOU Aeuet 




25 TOU 



dp^6/Jievo<i a)o~el er&v Tpid/eovTa, 

26 TOU Maa0 



27 TOU 'Icaavdv 

TOV Zopo/3dj3eX 


28 TOU 

TOU K(DO~d/J, 



TOU np 

29 TOU 




TOV Aevei 

30 TOU 




31 TOU MeXea 

TOV Aauet'S 

32 TOU \eao~ai 

TOV Boo? 



23 apxo/j.evos om e f syr.sin : epxo/j.evos Clem Iren 
Nafla/u (v. 31)] nomina e Matt i. 6-16 : TOV IaKCJ/3 . 
additis V regum nominibus quae praeterrn. Matt 
A D syr.cnr (cf. Matt i. 4, I Chron ii. 11) 

TOU HXa . . . row 

TOV SoXo^aw substit. D 

32 ZaXa X*B syr.sin ; 

23. u/^o/xei'os] This word seems 
to have caused difficulty in early 
times. Hence prob. its omission 
in Old Latin texts and Old Syriac, 
and the variant reading ep^o/zevos 
' when he came to the baptism.' 
But the word has point in emphasis- 
ing that this was 'the beginning' (cf. 

Acts i. 22, x. 37), and helps to 
justify the insertion of the genealogy 
at this stage. 

locrel fTiov TpuiKovTa] The Ev. 
gives a round number which does 
not give much help in elucidating 
the apparently conflicting chrono- 
logical data in i. 5, ii. 2, and iii. i. 


33 TOV 'ASfjueiv 36 TOV Kawd/j, 
TOV 'Apz/et rov 'Ap(f)a$;d8 
TOV 'Eicrpwv rov S^/u, 

TOV <&apes TOV Nwe 

TOV 'lovSa TOV 

34 TOV 'la/cwft 37 TOV 
TOV '\o-adfc TOV 

<" ' A /"> ' <i JT / 

TOV Appaafj, TOV lapeT 

TOV apd TOV 

TOV Nafta) p TOV 

35 TOV ^epovft 3^ r v 
TOV 'Payav TOV 


TOV "E/3e> TOV deov. 


33 rov Adftetv rov Apvei B : mult inter se diffMSS et verss : rov Adajj. praem. t<* : 
rov Afj-Lvadafi rov A^a/j, AD latt " ex Matt i. 4 (cf. Ruth iv. 19 sqq I Chron ii. 
10) vide WH App i>. 57 et de txt syr.sin Burkitt Ev. da Meph. ad loc 36 rov 

om D 


From the Jordan Jesus withdraws to the desert, where, after a forty days' 
fast, he encounters the devil, who tempts him to put his powers as son of God 
to the test and to transfer his allegiance to himself. 

That a period of retirement and of spiritual struggle should have succeeded 
the experiences of the baptism is in itself intelligible. It is a further question 
whether our accounts of the temptation in the desert depend on the testimony 
of the only person who could have given first-hand testimony. As in the case 
of the baptism, our answer will partly depend on our view of the probability 
of such autobiographical communications on the part of Jesus, partly also on 
the character of the narratives themselves. 

The narrative of the temptation in Luke as in Matthew is dependent upon 
Mark and upon another common source, probably Q. Mark and the non- 
Marcan source differ somewhat in their presentation : Mark's very brief 
narrative does not refer to the fast, and probably implies that Jesus was fed 
by angels during the forty days ; moreover the temptation is represented as 
taking place during the forty days. This last conception reappears in Luke, 


where it does not entirely harmonise with the rest of the narrative derived 
from the non-Marcan source, which regards a forty days' fast as the preliminary 
to the first temptation. 

It seems likely that the picture as given in Q has been filled in by the 
imagination of the early Church. The balanced structure of the three tempta- 
tions with the three quotations of Scripture in reply suggests a reflective 
dramatisation of the rejection by Jesus of false Messianic ideals. Magical feats 
ascribed to Simon Magus and others parallel to the first and third temptations 
are referred to in the notes. The Gospel narrative is not improbably designed 
to distinguish the claims and character of Jesus Christ from those of such 
false Christs and false prophets. Perhaps also the narrative reflects a reaction 
against crude belief in miracle within the Church. Cf. Eitrem, Die Versuchung 
Christi (Norsk teologisk Tidsskrijt, 1924) ; Bousset, Kyrios Chrislos, p. 54. 

That Jesus was tempted is a central thought in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Otherwise it does not appear in the N.T. outside the synoptic Gospels. The 
fourth Evangelist omits this element of the tradition from his account of the 
incarnate life of the Logos. ~ 

IV I I?7<70U9 &e TrX?;/)?;? irveijp,aro^ ajuov VTrearpetyev airo 

2 TOV 'lopSdvov, Kal faero ev TU> Trvevfjiart ev TTJ epr^fjiw rjfjbepas 

7reipao/j,evos VTTO TOV $ia/36\ou. Kal OVK 
ovSev ev rat? i]^epa^ eVeiWt?, Kal crvvTeXeo-deio-wv 

3 avTwv eTreLvaaev. elirev Se avTtp o Bid/3o\o<} Et i>io? el TOV 

4 6eov, i7T6 TW \L6ti> Tovray Ivo, yevrjTat apro?. Kal 

I trytou om boh coda Atli. 

i. TrA-vypys Tri/er/jiaTos ay ton] A o-vvTeX.ecr0eiorwv avTiav} An idiom- 

characteristic Lucan addition, which atic improvement. Mt. vcrrepov. 

determines the interpretation of ei> 3. ct vtos e? TOV Oeoii] The 

TW TTvev/jMTi in the next sentence as temptations are consequent upon 

equivalent to iv TI] 8i>i>u.( TOO the proclamation of the sonship 

Tri'ei'/xuTos, v. 14. So Wellh. InMk., at the baptism. The devil tempts 

on the other hand, and in Mt. the him to use supernatural power to 

Spirit is an outward force which acts satisfy his own wants. Jesus 

upon Jesus. TO Tri/cu/m avTov e'/c- adduces the words of Deut. viii. 3 : 

/3aAA.ei et's Trjv e'p/y/xoi/ Mk. ; av^^iy man's needs are not physical only. 

as TI]V epr)p,ov VTTO TOU Tn/eiy/arosMt. Mt. completes the quotation dAA' 

2. i//jtepas TtcnrepuKOVTa] A round ITTL iravrl /jrJ/xTi /<7ro/ - Jvo/xep'aj 

figure, as frequently in O.T., e.g. Sia o-To/zcrros Oeov . Changing stones 

i Ki. xix. 8, of Elijah's journey to into bread was one of the feats of 

Horeb. OVK e'c^ayev ovoev] Stronger Simon Magus, Pseudo-Clem. Horn. 

than Mt. vya-revo-as. ii. 32. 


Trpo? avTov 6 'I^troO? PeypaTTTaL OTL OYK en' Aprtp MONC^ 
ZH'CGTM d ANGpojiroc. Kal dvayaywv avTov eSa^ev avrq) 5 
r9 /9criXe/a9 r??9 oiKOV/uewrjs ev crny/Ay ^povov Kal 6 
avT<p 6 Sid/3o\o<? %ol BUKTW rrjv e^ovcriav ravrrjv 
aTracrav Kal TTJV 86%av avrwv, on e/Jiol Trapa&eBorat, Kal <a av 
6e\ay oY&w/u avrrfv crv ovv eav irpOfrKvvrjcrrjs evcairiov e/Ao), 7 

crov Tracra. Kal airoKpidels o f^croi)? eiirev avrw 8 

KYPION TON eeo'u coy npocKYNniceic KAI 
AATpev'ceic. "Hryayev Se avrov et'<? ^lepova-a^rj/jb Kal 9 

eirl TO Trrepvyiov rov lepov, Kal eLTrev \avrw\ Et 
u/09 el rov Oeov, (3d\e (reavrov evrevOev KUTW tyeypairrai yap IO 



5. Matthew places this temptation 
last, probably preserving the original 
sequence. The temptation to win 
the world by worshipping the devil 
should be the climax. This time 
Jesus is bidden, not to test, but to 
surrender the divine sonship. The 
motive of Luke's change of order may 
have been the desire to avoid a 
second change of scene, dvayaywv 
avrov] By omitting ' the very lofty 
mountain' which is given as the 
scone of the temptation in Mt. 
(and prob. in Q), and by inserting 
the phrase tv wrty/o; xpovov Lk. 
softens the realism and conveys the 
impression of a visionary experience. 

6. Kut r-t-jv S6u.v awTtiji/ must 
refer back to ras j3a.crih.eias. But 
the sentence would be much eased 
if the words could be either omitted 
or placed, as in Mt., after TUS 

rvys olKovfj.evi]<s (TOV 
Mt.). O.VTTJV v. 6 and 
v. 7 would then refer simply 
to TI/V eov(Tiav TO,I>TT/I/. on C/JLOL 
. . . a I'D; i'] An explanatory clause 
peculiar to Lk. The devil is de 
facto ruler of this world, <> apx^av 
TOV Koa-jiov TOVTOV, as in John xii. 

eNTeAeTr^i nepi cof TOY AiA4>YA^5<M ce, 
ce MH rrore rrpocKoVMC rrpdc Af0ON I I 

31, xiv. 30, xvi. ii. Cf. Bousset, 
R. J. 3 pp. 5 1 4 f . Instead of displacing 
him, Jesus is tempted to receive 
dominion at his hands. The scrip- 
tural reply is quoted from Deut. 
vi. 13. 

9 f. On this occasion the devil 
himself quotes Scripture. The son 
of God can surely rely on the super- 
natural aid promised in Ps. xci. to 
those who trust God. The tempta- 
tion and its rejection should be set 
against the background of stories of 
flights through the air ascribed to 
wonder-workers. Cf. Vercelli Acts 
of Peter, xxxii. (of Simon Magus) ; 
Lucian, Philopseudes -40; Maspero, 
Conies populaires, pp. 143, 199 n. i. 
Such display is not compatible with 
the character and mission of Jesus 

9. TO irrepvyiov TOV tepov] The 
exact site referred to here (and in 
Hegesippus ap. Eus. H.E. ii. 23. u) 
is uncertain. irrepvy LOV ('little 
wing') probably means 'pinnacle' 
or ' battlement.' Cf . Lat. pinna. 
Josephus, Ant. xv. 11.5, refers to the 
dizzy height of the O-TOU, J3a<ri\eio<s 
on the south side of the Temple area. 


1 2 TON TTO'AA, coy. Kal atroKpiOeis eljrev CLVT<*> o 'Irjcrovs on 
13 T&iprjrai OYK eKneip&'ceic Ky'pioN TON eeo'N coy. Kal crvvT\e(ra<; 
Trdvra 7rei,pa<r/j,bv 6 StaySoXo? direcTrr) IITC avrov a^pi /caipov. 

12. Jesus quotes Deut. vi. 16. temptations were resumed. Of. xxii. 

13. crui/reAeo-as Trai/Ta Treipaoyzoi/] 28 ; also Mk. viii. 33 ( = Mt. xvi. 23) 
Editorial. Mt. TOTC. &XP L Kaipov] where Satan speaks through Peter. 
Add. Luc. It is implied that the But Mk. viii. 33 is omitted in Lk. 

THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE (iv. i4~ix. 50) 

The scene of this section of the Gospel is laid in Galilee. It opens with the 
return of Jesus to Galilee, and except at viii. 26 when Jesus and his disciples 
sail across the lake to the country of the Gerasenes, " which is opposite to 

> Galilee," Luke leaves it to be inferred that the work of Jesus continued to be 
carried on in the cities and villages of Galilee. An indication that the scene is 
to be changed is found at ix. 3 1, where we are told that Moses and Elijah spoke 
of his eoSos which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. The Galilean 
section ends at ix. 50, after which Jesus " set his face to go up to Jerusalem." 

. The narrative reproduces Mk. i. I4~ix. 39 with some limitations, of 
which the following are the more important : 

(1) vi. 20- viii. 4 is all derived from non-Marcan sources. 

(2) The Marcan narratives of the call of the disciples (i. 16-20) and of the 
visit to Nazareth (vi. 1-6) are replaced by longer and variant versions of the 
same events in different connexions (v. i-i i, iv. 16-30). But in each case the 
influence of the Marcan version may still be traced. 

(3) Mk. vi. 45-viii. 26 is omitted. See Introd. pp. lix f. One consequence of 
this omission is that the journey of Jesus to the parts of Tyre and Sidon drops 
out. This, combined with the omission of mention of " the villages of Caesarea 
Philippi" at ix. 18 (=Mk. viii. 27) leaves in Luke an impression of an 
uninterrupted Galilean ministry, until the last journey to' Jerusalem. 

14 Kal v'jrea'Tpe'^rev o ITJCTOVS Iv Ty Svixi/jiet, rov 

et9 TTJV Ta\L\aiav. Kal ^ij^f) e^rfKOev KaO^ 0X7/9 TT}? irepi- 

I 5 %(*)pov Trepl avrov. Kal avrbs eoYSacr/ce^ eV rat? avvaywyais 
avrcov, Soao/zez>o9 VTTO irdvrwv. 

14,15. Jesus returns to Galilee and (iii. 19 f.). Mt. dates the public 

wins fame as a teacher. An editorial teaching of Jesus from his first 

summary. The first public appearance arrival in Capernaum after leaving 

of Jesus is not, as in Mk. and Mt., Nazareth : in Lk. he is already 

directly related to the arrest of John, famous as a teacher before his visit 

which has been already recorded to Nazareth. 



After a period of successful teaching in Galilee, Jesus comes to Nazareth, 
his. native city. His preaching in the synagogue impresses his hearers, who 
however are later provoked and turn upon him. Jesus escapes from their 
fury and leaves the city. 

Mark does not mention a visit to Nazareth until a later period and he 
assigns the rejection of Jesus by his fellow-townsmen to that occasion 
(vi. 1-6). Mt. follows Mk. in his account of the rejection, but he also 
implies a visit to Nazareth before the opening of the ministry at Capernaum 
(iv. 13 KdraAiTTwi/ rrjv Na^apa). In view of the mention of Nazareth 
in the first chapters both of Mt. and Lk., it is not remarkable that the two 
evangelists should agree in referring to Nazareth again at this point. There 
is nothing except the name to suggest a common source, but it is remarkable 
that they should agree in giving here the rare form Naa/ou (so B k al in 
Mt., but N'D al Naa/oe'0). 

Most critics agree with Augustine that this narrative and Mk. vi. i f. deal 
with the same event. Lagrange, who accepts the identification and also holds 
that Mt. and Lk. are to be followed in giving a visit to Nazareth at 
an earlier date, suggests that Lk. has conflated records of two visits, and 
that this accounts for the obscurity which is to be noted in the sequence of 
the narrative. Even so difficulties remain, and it is easier to suppose that 
Lk. has taken the narrative of Mk. vi. (which he omits at the corresponding 
point in his own Gospel, viii. 56) as foundation for a representative and 
symbolic scene to open the public ministry of Jesus, and that he himself is 
mainly responsible for the section as it stands. The essential features of 
Mk. vi. i f. are reproduced. Jesus preaches in the synagogue and impresses 
his hearers, who however take offence at the ' wisdom ' of their fellow- 
townsman. Jesus retorts with the saying that a prophet is not without 
honour except among his own people. The failure to work miracles recorded 
m Mk. is not repeated directly in Lk., but it is presupposed somewhat 
awkwardly in the complaint which Jesus ascribes to his hearers, v. 23. But 
the Marcan narrative is expanded in two directions, (i) Lk. makes the 
recorded fact of the sermon an opportunity of announcing the programme of 
the Gospel. Jesus declares himself to be the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy 
of one anointed with the spirit, who is to relieve the poor and afflicted and to 
proclaim ' the acceptable year of the Lord.' This is, in effect, a substitute 
for the Marcan summary of the preaching, of Jesus (Mk. i. 15) which Lk. 




has omitted, probably because he felt that it failed to express more important 
aspects of the Gospel. (2) Jesus is represented as appealing to the precedents 
of Elijah and Elisha who worked miracles for aliens rather than for their'own 
countrymen, to explain why his own miracles performed at Capernaum had 
not been repeated at Nazareth. The story thus transformed is lacking in 
sequence: there is no proper transition from the people's wonder at the 
'gracious words ' of Jesus (v. 22) to the complaint which Jesus ascribes to them 
inv. 23. Moreover the incidents cited from the careers of Elijah and Elisha 
provide good precedents for a mission to Gentiles and this no doubt was 
their real significance to the evangelist but the implied analogy between the 
inhabitants of Capernaum and the heathen widow of Sarepta and Naamau 
is too remote to be original. 

The narrative must not be pressed. Its real function is to introduce 
the main motifs which are to recur throughout the Gospel and the Acts, and 
this it does with great effect : the Gospel to the poor is preached by Jesus 
in his own home and rejected. The rejection by Nazareth foreshadows 
the rejection by the Jewish people and the subsequent universal mission 
of the Church. 

1 6 Kal rjKOev et9 Naapd 9 ov rjv 

, KOI ei<rrfkdev 

Kara TO etw^o? ai/rco eV Try rjfiepa T&V aaftftdraiv a? rrjv 

1 7 avva r yu)<yr)v, Kal dveffTf) dvayvwvai. 
fBift\iov TOV 7rpo<j)TjTov 'klcraiov, Kal d 
\TQV\ TOTTOV ov rjv yeypa/jifAevov 

1 8 TTNeyMA Kypfoy err' e/v\e, 





16. dvea-rrj uvayviavai] Neither 
the reading of Scripture nor the 
preaching (cf. Acts xiii. 15) is 
restricted to officials. The reader 
stands to read and sits to preach, 
v. ig. The prophetic lection (Haph- 
tare) has no doubt been preceded by 
the lection of the law (Parasche); 
cf. Acts xiii. 15, xv. 21. On the 
authorities for the customs of the 
synagogue cf. Schurer, ii. pp. 527 f. 
" How far the account is based on 
adequate knowledge of the Jewish 
custom it is hard to judge : it must 
not at once be assumed that the 

later rabbinic standard is applicable " 
(Wellh.). Lk., however, may probably 
himself be taken as a good authority for 
Jewish custom, at least in the Diaspora. 
17. eSpev TOV TOTToi/j It is implied 
that there was no fixed order of 
prophetical lessons. Cf. Schurer, ii. 

P- 533- 

1 8. Ilveu/xa Kiynoi; /crA.] Is. Ixi. 

i f. The application of this passage 
of prophecy to the gospel of Jesus 
is also presupposed in vii. 22 
= Matt. xi. 5 (Q) 
f3X.Trov(TLv, TTTw^ot 
God had ' anointed ' eto-ej/) Jesus 






IXPICG'N MG eY&rTeA(c&c0(M nrcoxoTc, 




tlov diroSovs T<O inr^perr) eicdOi&ev KCLI 2O 
ol 6(j)da\fjLol ev rfj (rvvarywyf) rj&av drevi^ovre^ avru>. 
Be Xeyetz/ irpbs CLVTOVS OTL ^rjfjuepov TreTrX^corat r\ 2 1 
<ypacf)r) avrrj ev rot? wa\v VJAWV. KOI Traz/re? ef^aprvpovv 22 
avrw /cal edavfjia^ov eirl rot? Xo^ot? rr}? ^apLro^ rot? 
efCTropevo/jievois eic rov crroyu/aTO? avrov, /cal e\eyov O^%t 
uto? ecrTLV 'Iftxr^ euro?; /cat elirev TT/OO? avrovs Tidvrws 23 

with the spirit at his baptism. Cf. 
Acts x. 38 to? e'x/Ho-ei/ ai'roi/ o ^eos 
Trvevfjiari a.yta> /cat Svi/a/xet, where 
the wording again recalls Is. Ixi. 
The text here follows the LXX with 
the following variations : post 
a7recrraA./<ei/ /ze Lk. om. IdcracrOai 


add. ex Is. Iviii. 6 ; 

LXX. Jesus fulfils the 
prophecy of good news for the poor 
and redemption for the afflicted. By 
putting this prophecy in the forefront, 
Lk. strikes a somewhat different note 
from Mk., who begins with the im- 
minence of the kingdom, and the 
call to repentance. 

20. TTTv^as] The book was in the 
form of a roll. Nothing is said of 
the usual translation of the Hebrew 
Scripture into the Aramaic of 
common speech. 

TOJ {177-77/36x77] For the j;tn and his 
functions cf. Schiirer, ii. p. 515, who 
quotes an inscription of the Roman 
Jewish community $/\.a/?tos 'lov- 


ai/os VTrrjpeT-rjs. 



^ 77 

. . . v TIJ crvvayfayy] 
For the omission of the art. cf. Blass 


ev TOIS 

j \ 


i.e. in hearing my 
words, you hear the fulfilment of the 
prophecy. Wellh. and Klost. wish 
to construct ev rots uxriv with 77 
ypa.(f>r) avrrj ' this scripture which you 
have just heard.' But- this is harsh 
and is not demanded to make sense. 

22. /j.apTvpovv] Lit. ' bore witness 
to him,' i.e. praised him. Cf. Acts 
xxii. 12. 

rots Aoyots TT)S xdpiTos] ' Gracious 
words,' cf. Col. iv. 6 6 Aoyos V/JLUV 
TTttVTore ev ^aptrt, aAart rjpTVfJLtvos. 
X^P L< s does not here mean 'the divine 
grace' as in Acts xx. 24 TO evay- 
yeXiov XT)? ^cxptTO? TO? 6eov. 

ov)(l mos . . . OUTOS;] The ques- 
tion need not express more than 
surprise, and is so interpreted by 
Wellh., who holds that the change 
to hostility first follows at v. 28. 
The parallel questions in Mk. relat- 
ing to the family of Jesus (vi. 3) lead 
up to the statement /cat eovcavSaAi'- 
(OVTO ev avna. This is softened in 
Lk., but here too we are probably 
meant to discover an undertone of 
indignation to which Jesus replies in 
the following verses. In any case a 
very awkward transition is involved. 

23-27. "Jesus, dans Marc, pent 
bien dire, en se voyant mal regu a 



epelre. JJLOI, rrjv irapa/BoXrjV Tavrijv 'Jar/?e, OepaTrevcrov 
creavrbv ova r^KovcrafJiev yevo/jieva els rrjv K-atyapvaov/Ji 

24 iroir/a-ov KCLI &Be ev rrj irarpi&i aov. elirev Be 'Aftrjv \eyco 
Vfuv on ovBels TrpoffrrJTTjs Be/cros eariv ev rf} TrarpiBi, avrov. 

25 eV a\7)0eia<? Be \eyco V/JLLV, 7ro\\al 'fflpat, ^aav ev rat? 
rjfjbepai, 1 ? 'HXetou ev TO> 'IcrparjX, ore K\ela-0r} 6 ovpavbs erf] 
rpia /cal pyvas e, co? eyevero \ifjbbs fj,eya<; eirl Traaav rrjv 

26 yrjv, Kal Trpbs ovBefJbiav avrwv errefJi^Ori 'H/W9 el fj,rj eic 

saying occurs in Oxyrrh. Logia vi. 
Aeyet 'I^crods* OI'IK Icrru/ SCKTOS 
Tr^oo^ryT^s ei/ Trj Trarpt,8i ai)T[o]u, 011- 
Se tarpos Trptet ^epaTretas cts rov<s 
/ yetv(ocr/<ovTas avTov. Bultmann, 
G.8.T. p. 15 follows Wendling and 
Preuschen (Z.N.T.W. xvii., 1916, pp. 
33-48) in holding that this saying 
underlies the narrative of Mk. vi. I f. 
as well as this passage in Luke. It 
is far more probable that the Oxyrrh. 
Logion depends upon Lk., for though 
less effective as a proverb, the form of 
the saying in the Oxyrrh. Logia suits 
the occasion of this narrative better 
than the form which is here actually 
used. The application in Lk. has 
in this case reacted upon the proverb. 

24. ap^v] Six times only in Lk., 
who usually translates the foreign 
word into Greek. Cf. eV d\rj&ftas 
in the next verse. 

25. e'r?7 rpia, Kal (JL'fjvas e'] So 
also in James y. 7, though 3 Regn. 
xviii. I does not extend the famine 
beyond three years. Plummer and 
Klost. suggest that the 3! years of 
disaster in Apocalyptic (Dan. vii. 
25; Rev. xii. 14) have influenced 
the reckoning. 

Aiyuos //eyas] r?)i> \ifjuuv Aco/atets, 
crv Se dp<reviKws TOV XifMjv (frddi. 
Phryn. clxiv. Fern, in xv. 14, and 
Acts xi. 28. 

26. et fji-ij] Adversative, not ex- 
ceptive in force. Cf. Rev. xxi. 27. 
It is not necessary to assume Aramaic 

Nazareth, qu'un prophete n'est pas 
honore dans son pays ; ce n'est pas 
motif pour que le prophete, avant 
toute manifestation d'hostilit6, se 
refuse a faire le miracle qu'on pourra 
lui demander en preuve de sa 
mission; il n'y a pas non plus de 
rapport entre le cas du prophete 
dedaign6 chez lui et les examples 
d']5lie et d'^lisee, Elie n'ayant pas 
et6 precisement honor6 a Sarepta, 
et ]5lisee n'ayant jamais 6t6 meprise 
en Israel. L' artifice est sensible dans 
la suture redactionnelle " (Loisy). 

23. TTavrws] A strong affirmative. 

epetre'] Wellh. most improbably 
regards this future as prophetic of 
a future rejection at Nazareth (as in 
Mk. vi.) consequent upon future suc- 
cesses at Capernaum. The successes 
at Capernaum have, it is true, not yet 
been related, but they might be held 
to be covered by the activity related 
in vv. 14, 15 supra. In any case the 
whole must have been meant to refer 
to the present occasion. 

larpe, Otpdirevo-ov creavrov] A 
proverbial saying common in the 
ancient world, e.g. Eur. Fragm. 
1071 (Nauck) aAAcoi/ tarpbs avTos 
e'A./<ecrii/ (3pvuv. Bereshith Rabba 23 
"Physician, heal thine own limp." 
Cf. Wettstein, ad loc. It does not 
seem to be very appropriate here, 
for the demand is that the physician 
should heal, not himself, but his 
neighbours. A variant of the 


2&penT<\ THC SIACONIAC npdc TYN^TKA XHR&N. KOLI TroAAot Xe'jrpol 2J 
r\Gav ev TO> \a-par]\ eVt 'QXicraiov rov TrpocfriJTOV, tcai ovSels 
avrwv eicaOapicrO'rii el firj Nctt//,az/ o Zvpos. KOL eTrXriaOrja-av 28 
OV/AOV ev rfj crvvaycoyf] atcovovres ravra, teal ava- 29 
ee/3a\ov avrov e^ca TT}? 7roA,e&>9, KOI tfyayov avrov 
e&>? 0(j)pvo<; rov opovs e(j> ov r; 770X49 q)tco$o/j,r)TO avrwv, were 
KaraKprj/jLVLcrai, avrov atro9 Se SteX^ooz/ Sta fjuecrov avrwv 30 

idiom (so Wellh.). Cf. O.G.I.S. 
201. 20 and Dittenberger ad loc.; 
Aristoph. Eg. 1 86 ; Lysistr. 943 ; 
Thesm. 898, for Greek parallels. 

yvvaiKa \i]pai'~\ Wellh. holds that 
the sense requires mention of the 
heathen extraction of the woman to 
contrast with the Tro/XAcu X'W ai >l/ 
TOJ IcrparyA, and that X ll ')P av ^ s ^ ue 
to misreading an Aramaic orig. 
N*?0"lX as N^DIN, thus proving an 
Aramaic documentary source for 
w. 25-27. But X 7 ')P av reproduces the 
LXX of 3 Regn. xvii. 9 yvvaiKi X'lP^ 
and the reference to Sarepta points 
sufficiently the required contrast. 

29. 6(05 o</>pi'os . . . (i>/coSo/>i?;ro 
ai'rwi'] Nazareth lies on the slope 
of a hill. The site here referred to 
has been much disputed. Cf. Sanday, 
Sacred Sites of the Gospels, p. 49. 

Probably it is a mistake to attempt 
topographical verification. 

30. A miraculous disappearance 
is probably implied as in Jo. viii. 
59. Loisy reads too much artifice 
into the narrative when he suggests 
that the author is thinking mainly 
of the final issue of Christ's gospel : 
" The Christ escapes in the glory of 
his immortality from the death which 
the Jews wished to inflict upon him, 
and the faith of Christ, rejected and 
persecuted by the same Jews, makes 
its way among the nations." Yet 
the triumphant mission of Jesus, in 
spite of the hostility of enemies and 
the narrow enthusiasm of friends 
(v. 42), is no doubt felt by the 
evangelist to be a fitting prelude 
to the story which is to follow in 


Luke now begins to follow closely the Marcan narrative. 

Marcion began his Gospel at this point, combining iii. I with iv. 31, 
and transferring the preceding section, iv. 16-30, to follows. 39. Ku.T?]X6f.v 
then means ' came down from heaven.' 

Kat Karrj\0ev et9 Kcupapvaov/j, vroKiv r?}9 Ta\L\ala<?. 3 1 

3 1 '37. Jesus teaches in a syna- from the possessed man. || Mk. i. 

21-28. Lk. reproduces and slightly 
abbreviates Mk. with alterations 
which are mainly verbal only. The 
power exercised by Jesus over the 

gogue at Capernaum where ho is 
recognised and acclaimed by a 
demoniac as 'the Holy one of 
God.' To the astonishment of the 

onlookers Jesus casts out the demon possessed clearly made a deep im- 


32 Kal rjv $L$d(rK(ov avrovs ev rot? a-dfifSacriv Kal 

aovro eVl rfj SiSa^r} avrov, ori ev %ov<rta j]V 6 Xoryo? avrov. 
3 3 Kal ev rf) crvvaycoyf} r)v avdpcoiros e^mv 'jrvev/ua Sai/Aoviov 

34 aKaOdprov, Kal dveKpa^ev (f>covfj fjLeyd\y "Ea, ri rjfuv Kal 

/ T n XT if f <?-y /) 1 -. / r n ?. / / ? 

0-ot, LVJCTOV Na^aprjve; 7)A-6 f e? airo\ea-aL rjfjbas; oiba ae Tt9 ei, 

35 o ayios rov 0eov. Kal erreripycrev avrw 6 'I^crov? \e^u>v 

Kal e%e\0e air avrov. Kal ptyav avrov TO 
et? TO /Jbecrov e^tj\0ev aTr avrov 

pression upon his associates, and is 
deeply embedded in the tradition. 
Cf. Acts x. 38 os SirjXOev evepyerwv 
Kal tw/zevos Travras TODS Kara- 
Svva<TTvofj,evov<s virb rov StaySoAov. 
Only in St. John do we find 
no cures of demoniacs. That the 
demons, in virtue of their super- 
natural knowledge, recognised the 
true character of Jesus is a standing 
feature of the Marcan picture (i. 
23, 34 ; iii. 1 1 ; v. 7) which reappears 
in Lk. 

31. TroXiV T//S TaAtAatas] Lk. 
adds the geographical description of 
Capernaum, the chief centre of the 
Galilean ministry, for the benefit of 
his Gentile readers. 

32. Lk. omits Mk.'s contrast with 
the scribes who lacked 'authority.' 
Reitzenstein (Poimandres, p. 48, n. 3) 
interprets loucria here in a quasi- 
magical sense power based on know- 
ledge of divine secrets; cf. Pap. mag. 
Mus. Lugd. Batav., ed. Dieterich, 
Jahrbucher f. Class. Phil. Supplem. 
xvi. p. 802. Reitzenstein, Die 
hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen,^ 
pp. 302, 363, but the meaning 
of Iv eowrta here is quite general, 
' with authority.' So Mt., who makes 
Mk.'s words a conclusion to the 
proclamation of the new Law in the 
Sermon on the Mount. 

34. e'a] An interjection (not de- 
rived from law) expressing- indignant 
surprise. Here only in N.T. ; fre- 
quent in Attic poets, but rare in 

prose, as in Plato, Protag. 314 D. 
fa in Job iv. 19 (?), xv. 16, xix. 
5, xxv. 6 (LXX) is a different word, 
being used as a conjunction to trans. 
'S P)N, with the meaning ' much less,' 
' let alone,' and is prob. derived 
from caw. 

rt rj/Aiv Kal crot;] The meaning is 
'what have we in common with 
thee?' Cf. Judg. xi. 12; 3 Regn. 
xvii. 1 8; 4 Regn. iii. 13; Epict. 
Diss. i. i. 1 6 rts oVe/xos irve.1 ; 



i. 27. 13. ?7/xii/ . . . 7/yuas] i.e. us 

6 aytos TOU #eo{i] Besides this 
passage and the Marcan original, 
this phrase occurs only in Jo. vi. 69. 
Cf. Acts iv. 27 ; i Jo. ii. 20 ; Rev. 
iii. 7. In Ps. cv. (cvi.) 16 Aaron is 
spoken of as 6 uyios Kvptov. To 
a Christian reader 'the consecrated 
of God ' would suggest the Christ. 

35. (jki/iwtf^Ti] Lit. ' be muzzled.' 
tjiiuovv had acquired the special 
meaning of ' to v bind with a spell.' 
Cf. Cypriote spells publ. in Proceed- 
ings of the Soc. of Bill. Archaeol. xiii. 
(1890) pp. 174:8:.; Rohde, Psyche, 
ii. p. 424. But here the word prob. 
means only 'to be silenced,' as 
prob. in Mk. iv. 39 and certainly 
in Mt. xxii. 12, 34; i Peter ii. 15; 
Jos. B.J. prooem. 5, and elsewhere. 

ptyav . . . cts TO fjiccrov\ For the Mar- 
can cnrapd^av* uifiev j3Xd^/av avrov] 
A Lucan addition which heightens the 
wonder. In v. 33 supra Lk. had 


avrov. Kal eyevero 0dal3o<f errl Trdvras, Kal crvve\d\ovv 36 
7rpo9 d\\rjXovs \eyovr e<f Tt? o 710709 ovros on ev e^ovaua 
Kal Bvvdfjiei, eVtrao-cret rot? aKaOdprois irvev^acnv, Kal 
et-ep^ovrai ; Kal e^eiropevero ^%09 irepl avrov et9 rcdvra 37 
rorrov rfc rrepiydtpov. Ava&ras Be drro rrfs 38 

>}9 el(Tri\0ev et9 TIJV oiKiav ^Lfjiwvo^. Trevdepd Be rov 
rjv avve^ofjievr) Trvpera) fjLeyd\q>, Kal ripcarrjaav avrov 

Kal eTTicrrds eirdvw avrfjs eirert/jLTjaev r<a 39 
TTvperrS, Kal d(j)r]Kev avrrjv Trapa^prjaa Be dvacrrdcra BiijKovei, 

added <f><j)V'j) //eyaA^ to <j.vei<patv. 
Here he omits the Marcan Kal 
(fni)vfj(rav <^wv77 /xeycxA-j;. By this 
transposition of the great cry Lk. 
leaves the devil obedient and silent, 
after the word of command has been 

36. lyevero ddpfSos eVt Trai/ras] 
Mk. cOu/jL/S'ijdrjfrav a7rai/Tes\ Lk.'s 
periphrasis is characteristic ; cf. v. 9, 

rts 6 Aoyos oiiros ;] ' What is 
this teaching ? ' Mk. ri ecrrt rouro ; 

37. ^/X 09 ! ^-^' 7 ? K01 / a word 
which does not appear in Lk. in 
the sense of 'report.' For '>]x os 
cf. xxi. 25 ; Acts ii. 2 ; Heb. xii. 19. 

38. In Mk. the account of the 
call of Simon, Andrew, James and 
John is placed at the beginning of 
the ministry. Lk. has omitted this 
section in order to replace it with 
his own version of the call of Peter 
which follows at v. I. This trans- 
position leaves the introduction of 
Simon's name at this verse (taken 
over from Mk.), and the visit of 
Jesus to his house, abrupt and un- 
explained. The names of the other 
disciples, Andrew, Simon's brother, 
and James and John, which occur in 

are dropped. 

Se . . . en/A,0ei'] so. 
a very natural modification 
of the Marcan plural * 

rjXOov which here and elsewhere may 
conceivably originate, as C. H. Turner 
acutely suggests, in a first -person 
plural used by Peter himself. J.Th.S. 
xxvi. p. 226. 

Mk. KO.TtKU.TO Trvpccrcrovcra. <rvv- 
e\eo-0ai of disease is common in 
Greek writers, but not found in 
Mk. Tri'peru) fjiyd\.<i) is well illus- 
trated by Galen, De diff. felr. i. i 
(vol. vii. p. 275 ed. Kiihn) i<al 
(Tvvt]6f.<5 ijSir] TOTS larpoTs ovo//,aeii/ 
li' Tovrii) TCO yeva T^S Siac^opas TOJ/ 
fj.eya.v re /axi /j.i.Kpbv TrvpeTov. See 
Introduction, p. xx. 

7ypajT?/o-ai/ avTov] It is not 'clear 
who are to be taken for the subject 
of the verb. In Mk. we have the 
less precise Aeyovcriv ai'rw avT'tjs, 
where Aeyowri is probably to be 
understood as an impersonal plural 
'he is told.' See Turner, J.Th.S. 
xxv. p. 378.^ 

39. eTrtcrras errat/co aur^s] Mk. 
7r/)ocreA$d)i/. eTrtcTTT^i/at is very fre- 
quent in Lk. 

C7TTt|U,?;orev T(p 7Tl'yOT(o] Lk. per- 

sonifies the fever. Mk. 7/yeipei/ avr-i'/ v. 
Lk. omits the detail KpaTij(ra<s 

Inserted by Lk. to 
emphasise the miraculous nature of 
the cure. The word occurs in Mt. 
xxi. 19, 20. Otherwise it is con- 
fined in N.T. to Lk. 



40 auTOi?. Avvovros Be rov ij\iov ctTravres oaot 

ei%ov ao-Oevovvra? vocrois Trot/aXat? rjjayov avrovs 

avrov. 6 $e evl e/cacrra) avrwv ra? eias eirinOels ede- 

42 evai 

4 1 puTrevev avrovs. ^rjp^ero Be KOI Bai/Jiovia airo 7ro\\wv, 
KOI "\,eyovra on Zi> el 6 f/o? rov 6eov' Kal evrt- 
OVK eia avra \a\eiv, on ySeicrav rov y^piarov avrov 

Be ^pepa? etfeX-Qcov 7ropev@ij el? 
i eTTefflrovv avrov, teal rj\0ov 
ew? avrov, Kal Karel^ov avrov rov JJLIJ iropeveadai, air 

43 avrcov. 6 Be elirev vrpo? avrovs on Kal rafc erepat? 
TToXeaiv evayye\io-ao-0aL //,e Bel rrjv {3ao~i\eiav rov Oeov, 

44 on eirl rovro aireo-raXyv. Kal rjv Kypvo-acov els ra? 

roTTov Kal 01 

40, 41. At sunset Jesus performs 
many cures and casts out devils who 
acclaim him as Son of God. Jesus 
suppresses their testimony to his 
person. Jj Mk. i. 32-34. The most 
important modifications are (i.) the 
words Kal rj TroAts o-vvyyfJievr) ^v 
Tiyios T?)I/ 6vpav are omitted, thus 
obscuring the Marcan account, which 
implies that the healings took place 
outside the house of Simon and 
Andrew; (ii.) Lk. adds the detail 
that Jesus healed by laying his hands 
upon the sick; (iii.) he draws on 
Mk. iii. ii for the actual testimony 
of the demoniacs, which he inserts 
here and omits at vi. 18. 

41.. T<JI> X/HCTTOI/ cti/tti] Add. Luc. 

42-44. A wider mission is under- 
taken in spite of enthusiastic crowds 
who would have kept Jesus to them- 
selves. || Mk. i. 35-39. But Lk. has 
given a slightly different tendency 
to the paragraph : in spite of his 
emphasis elsewhere upon the praying 
of Jesus (of. iii. 21 n.) he has here 
suppressed the Marcan statement 
that Jesus had retired to pray. The 
omission here may be due to Luke's 
desire to emphasise the single point 
of the extended mission. Compensa- 

tion is made at v. 16. In Mk. it 
is the disciples who seek out Jesus 
with the words 'all are looking for 
thee ' : in Lk. the disciples are not 
mentioned ; it is the multitude who 
seek for him and try to prevent his 
departure (add. Luc. 
rou //?} iropfvtcrdai air' 

43. Kal rats erepats . . . TOU 6eov] 
A characteristic Lucan paraphrase; 
cf. viii. i. Mk. "Ay<o/>iei/ uAAa^ov 
fi's ras \Ofj.eva<s Kco/xoTroAas, tva Kal 

CK6? K1)p{'lD. 

a7rco-TaAr;v] Lk. interprets Mk. 
e?)A0oi> in the sense ' came out on 
my mission' probably rightly. 

44. K-rjpvartriov eis] So Mk. eis = 
iv (which Mt. substitutes iv. 23). 
" The classical position, namely, that 
iv with the Dative answers the ques- 
tion ' where ? ' as with the Accus. 
the question ' whither ? ' had from 
early times been simplified in some 
dialects by iv taking to itself both 
cases and both functions; but the 
popular Hellenistic language went 
in the other direction and reduced 
everything to eis with Accus. repre- 
senting ' where ? ' and * whither ? ' 
From this intermixture, which meets 
us also in the LXX and in Egyptian 



44 rys lovScuas tfBCL i etc. 157 syrr(sin.hl)aegg : TT/J FaXtXams AD mult al latt 
syrr(vg.hl-mg) boh(codd)arm S~ 

private records, no writer of narrative Xaiav. Lk. uses 'lovSaia. for Pales- 

in the N.T. is free, with the excep- tine, cf. i. 5, vi. 17, vii. 17, xxiii. 5; 

tion of Matthew," Blass, 39, p. 122. Acts x. 37 ; but also in the narrower 

XT/? 'lovSatas] The best attested sense, i. 65, ii. 4, iii. i, v. 17, xxi. 

reading. Mk. ets oAr/i' r^v FaAt- 21. 


Luke here interpolates into the Marcan narrative a substitute for the 
account of the call of the first disciples, which he has omitted from the begin- 
ning of Mark. Like the non-Marcan narrative of the visit to Nazareth, this 
passage has a symbolic value. There the rejection by the Jews, here the 
winning of the Gentiles, is in some sense prefigured. Peter, the leader of the 
apostolic band, is called by Christ to become a fisher of men, and the success 
which is to attend his future mission is foreshadowed in the miraculous 
draught of fishes which he secures under the direction of Jesus. 

The account of the miracle is closely parallel to the narrative in Jo. xxi. 
The principal features are the same in each story : the disciples toil all night 
and take nothing ; then, at the bidding of Jesus, the net is lowered, and a 
large haul is secured. That there is some relationship, either direct or collateral, 
between the two narratives can scarcely be doubted. Wellh. holds (i.) that 
the story is a Lucan creation, the miracle being suggested by the saying which 
is already found in Mk. that the fishermen disciples are to become fishers of 
men, and (ii.) that the Johannine story depends directly upon Luke. In 
some particulars, it is true, the Johannine narrative appears to be more 
developed than the Lucan : the unbroken net and the 153 fish are consciously 
given a symbolic meaning in Jo. in a manner that is not paralleled in Lk. 
On the other hand, the Johannine version gives a more natural and, presum- 
ably, a more original setting. The disciples are at sea, after a long night's 
fruitless labour, when the stranger on shore bids them drop the net on the 
right side of the boat ; they do not, like Peter in Lk., deliberately put out 
to sea to catch the miraculous draught. We may also observe a difficulty 
in the Lucan narrative which would be well explained if the story derives 
from an account of a post-resurrection appearance of Christ to Peter parallel 
to that in Jo. xxi. : the exclamation of Peter, " Depart from me, for I 

a sinful man, Lord," seems inadequately explained 'by his ' wonder' 


at the haul of fishes ; but if the words originally belonged to an account 
of the first appearance of the Risen Lord to Peter, they are wholly in place : 
Peter recognises the Master he has denied, and begs him to leave his sinful 
disciple. Harnack thinks it probable that Lk. derived the story from the 
supposed lost end of Mk., and that the same tradition is represented in 
Jo. xxi., and probably also in the lost conclusion of the Gospel of Peter 
(Luke the Physician, p. 227 n.). 

In any case this narrative as it stands in Lk. shews signs of having been 
compiled from more than one source : the preaching to the multitude out of 
the ship is borrowed from Mk. iv. I (it is omitted at the corresponding place 
in Lk. viii. 4), and leaves an awkward transition to the sudden command to 
Peter to launch out into the deep. The abrupt introduction of James and John 
in v. 10, which reads like an afterthought, is probably due to Luke's combina- 
tion of Mk. i. 16-20 with another narrative in which Peter was the central 

avrw /cal dicoveiv 

V. i *Ei<yevero Be ev ru> rbi> o 

rov \6yov rov 0eov KOI avTO? r)V ecrra)? irapa rrjv \i/j,vr)v 

2 Yevvrjaaper, /cal elBev rrKola Bvo ear Syr a Trapa rrjv \lfJiV7jv, 
ol Be aXeet? arc avrwv drrofSavres errKvvov ra BiKrva. 

3 6ycA/Sa? Be et9 ev ratv rrXoitov, o TJV 2/ljj,covo<?, ypwrrjaev avrov 
drro TT}? 7?}? eTravajajelv oKi^ov, KadLa-as Be etc rov rr\oiov 

4 eBbBacrfcev rovs o^X-oi/9. 009 Be ercavcraro \a\wv, elrcev Trpo? 
rov %ifjLO)va 'EiTravdyaye et? TO fidOos KCLI ^aKdcrare ra 

5 Bifcrva vfxwv et9 aypav. real drroKpuOels Z^LJJLWV eircev 'E?rt- 
ardra, 8t' 0X7^9 vvtcros Komdcr avres ovBev eXaySoyttez^, eVl Be 

6 TW 

i crov %a\dcra) ra Bu/crva. Kal rovro 

I. eyej/ero Se kv rig . . . iau 
auros ^ . . . KOL ctiSev] On this and 
other constructions with e'yevero see i. 
8 n. Kal avros fy e'o-rws is probably 
parenthetical. So D JCTTOJTOS avTov. 

XI./JLVIJV] Cf. viii. 22, 23, 33. Lk. 
substitutes the correct geographical 
term for 6d\aa-cra used in Mk. and 
the other Gospels. A return to Caper- 
naum where Peter lived is implied 
but not stated. 

3. oA/yoi'] D ocrov uirov a popular 

expression, which is possibly original. 
Cf. Heb. x. 37 and Is. xxvi. 20 

4. e?ra i/ay aye . . . ^aAao-are] 
Simon alone directs the ship, but he 
needs help to let down the nets. 

5. eVto-Tara] 'Master.' Confined 
to Lk. in N.T. Except in xvii. 13 
used only by disciples. Lk. avoids 
'Pa/ifySet, so frequent in the other 
Gospels, as he avoids other non- 
Greek words. 


avveickeiaav "jrXrjOos l^Ovwv TroXv, ^Leprjacrero 8e TO, SLKTVO, 
avrwv. KOI Karevevuav rofc [Aero^ois ev T&J erepfo TT\OLM 7 
rov eKdovras a~v\\al3ear@ai, avrols' KOI rj\Bav, KOL eirKrjaav 
dpfyoTepa ra TrXoto. ware (BvOi^ecrOai, avrd. IBwv Be ^i/Jitov 8 
IleTp09 'Trpoo'eireaev rots yovacriv Irjcrov \e<ya)v 'EeX$e air 
efjiov, on dvrjp djJLapTQ)\o<s elfja, Kvpie' Odftftos yap irepLecr^ev 9 
avrov Kal iravras roi9 a~vv avra) eVt rfj ajpa r&v lyQvwv 
atv crvveKaftov, oyu-oteo? 8e KCLL ^dfcwftov KOI 'Icodvrjv viovs IO 
Ze/SeSaiov, o'l r^aav Kouvwvoi rc5 zifAcovt,. tcai elirev Trpbs TOP 

^ (fjo(3ov' diro TOV vvv dvOpanrovs ea"rj 

IO II o^coiws 5e Kai . . . rjKo\ov8riffav aurw] rjcrav Se KOIVWVOI avrov TaKW/Sos /cat 
vioi Zefieoaiov o 5e etTrei/ aurots Aeure /cat ^ITJ yeivecrde a\ieis i^Bvuv Troiijcrw 
yap v/ias aXieis avdpuiruv 01 5e a/coycra^res TTO.VTO. KareXei^av e?rt TIJS 797? /cai 
yKoKovdyaav aurw D e (sed pro o Se . . . yeiveffde habet e qui ait ad Simonem Ihs 
Nolite esse) 

7. eV T(3 eTe/3U) 7rAo6( t o] i.e. the 
second of the two boats mentioned 
in v. 2. The //cro^ot, as appears 
from v. 10, are James and John. A 
close parallel is quoted by Wettstein 
from Alciphron, i. 20 (17) 2 7rer$ev- 
T)J cruyvo u.ovovovt TUV 

/cat TO (3apo<s 

? Kara 

ofty Kat TOJI/ 
Tii'as eKoAoiyxei/ 

eTrayyeAAo/xevot, et o~uA- 
AapoiVTo JJ/JLIV Kat o"i'^u,7rovryo"atei/. 

Attempts have been made to 
interpret the details as symbolic : 
the /zero^ot represent Barnabas and 
Paul, who help Peter in converting 
the heathen. But this reads more 
into the text than Luke intended. 

8. Stju,tov IleTpos] Simon's sur- 
name is given in vi. 14. The two 
names are combined in Lk. here only. 
Syr.sin lat.vt (codd) om. Ilerpos. 

/crpie] The address need not mean 
more than 'sir,' of. Jo. xx. 15; but 
here the word must carry its full 
force of ' Lord.' It expresses a 
feeling of awe, not suggested by 
- supra v. 5. 

9. Oa/J./3os yap Tre/otecr^ev avrov] A 
characteristic periphrasis. Cf. iv. 36. 

Kat TrdVras rov<s <rvv O.VTM\ i.e. the 
others in Peter's boat, as distinguished 
from the /xero^ot in the second 

10. In Mk. i. 17 f. Jesus addresses 
the call Acure o?rto"(o fj.ov, Kat Trotryaw 
lyzas yevr#ai dAeets di'GpwTrwv to 
Simon and his brother Andrew, and 
then a little later finds and calls 
James and John. In Lk. Andrew, 
whose name appears only in the list 
of the twelve, is left out and the 
commission to be a fisher of men 
is addressed to Peter alone. James 
and John, who are to play an im- 
portant part in the later history, are 
included by name as ' associates of 
Simon.' In Mark they appear as 
a separate group with their father 
Zebedee. D assimilates the words 
of Jesus to the text of Mt. and 
Mk. and addresses them to the 
three disciples. 

fj.-)j </>o^o{i] The Divine Lord re- 
assures his awestruck follower. 

oVo TOU vvv] A favourite expres- 
sion with Lk. Cf. i. 48, xii. 52, 


1 1 faypwv. KOL Karayayovres ra ifKola eirl rrjv yfjv a^tWe? 
iravra r}KO\ov0r)aav aura). 

xxii. 18, xxii. 69; Ac. xviii. 6. nounced. Cf. v. 28 (the call of 
Also [Jo.] viii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 16. Levi) where a similar phrase KUTU- 

II. tt(/)i/res Trui/Ttt] All is re- AITTWJ/ TTO.VTO. is inserted by Lk. 

V. I2-V1. II 

Luke rejoins Mark, and reproduces, without substantial change, narratives 
of (i) the healing of a leper, (2) the healing of a paralytic, (3) the call of Levi, 
with (4) a consequent controversy with Pharisees on fasting, and (5) two 
controversies with Pharisees concerning the observance of the Sabbath day. 

The narratives of the controversies of Jesus with the Pharisees form a 
group of stories, which possibly existed as a group before their incorporation 
into Mark's Gospel. The early Palestinian community, it may be conjectured, 
under pressure of controversy with Pharisaic critics, felt the impulse to 
embody in simple literary form the living memory of controversies in which 
Jesus had vindicated his own and his disciples' freedom against Pharisaic 
critics. A collection of such narratives may have been made at some later 
date, and at a yet later period the collection may be supposed to have 
provided Mark with materials for his account of the ministry of Jesus. 
For an interesting conjectural attempt to reconstruct the literary develop- 
ment of the tradition cf. Albertz, Die synoptischen Slreilgespriiche, pp. 57 f. 

1 2 Kat eyevero ev TW elvat, CLVTOV ev p,ua TWV iroKewv Kal 
l$ov avrjp 7rXry>?y? ~ke r irpa<s' l$wi> Se rov 'Irjorovv irecroDV eVt 

1 2- 1 6. The Marcan narrative (i. ep\erat TT/JUS avrov ACTT/DOS. Lk. 
40-45) has no close connexion either gives a characteristic Biblical colour- 
with the section which precedes or ing to the style, Kal e'yei/ero . . . Kal 
with that which follows. Probably i'5oi; dvi'ip (ISov is never used in 
it had an independent history before narrative by Mark ; frequent in 
its incorporation in Mk. It is LXX, Mt. and Lk.) and intro- 
likely that such a story would be duces the narrative by the phrase 
valued and preserved in some sec- t'Swi/ Se TOV 'Irja-ovv. The words eV 
tions of the early community as an r<3 emu ai'rov fv /xia TWI/ TroAewj/ 
example of the compliance of Jesus (add. Luc.) give a connexion with 
with the ceremonial law. This same iv. 43. cm)p 7rAvyp?/s AcTrpas] Mk. 
interest is perhaps responsible for AeTrpos. 7rA-/yp;s is frequently used 
the position of the story in Mt. in Gk. medical writers of disease, 
immediately after the Sermon on but no exact parallel to TrAfyp/s 
the Mount. The difficulties of the Aor/ms is quoted. Hobart, p. 5. 
Marcan narrative are well discussed TTCCTWI/ CTTI TT^OO-WTTOI/] Mk. yaw- 
in Rawlinson, pp. 20 f., 265. Trerwi/, not Lucan. 5 5oy$?y] Found 

12. Mk. begins abruptly /cat Mt. ix. 38 (=Lk. x. 2). Otherwise 


eSetjdr) avrov \eyojv Kvpte, eav 6e\r)s Svvaarai, 
KaOapicraL. KOI eicreivas rrjv ^eipa r^^raro avrov \eya)v 1 3 
eXct>, KaQaplcrOrjTL' Kal evOecos rj \eirpa arrri\6ev air avrov. 

KCLI avros TraprfyyeiXev avrq) 

elirelv, a\\a 


AeT5oN aeavrov rip fepeT, real Trpocrevejice Trepl rov KaOapicr/Jiov 
crov /ea#o>9 Trpocreragev Mower?}? et? iiaprvpuov avrois. oV 

/J*a\\ov o ^0705 irepl avrov, Kal avvrip^ovro cr^Xot I 5 
t CLKOVGLV KOI Qep(VTT.V.<rQai CLTTO T&V aaOeveL&v avrwv 

avro<$ Se rjv vTro^wpwv ev rals eprjfJLQis Kal irocrevoAevos. 1 6 

14 eis ndpTvpiov cu/rots e f g 1 ' 2 vg : tva ets p-aprvpiov 77 (D* T\V) v(jt.eiv TOVTO 
D a b c ff 2 Marcion Tert Amb. add praeterea D o 5e e&\0u>v -rjp^aro K-rjpva-ffeiv Kat 
iv rov \oyov wcrre /iij/cen dvvaaOai avrov (fravepws 6is iro\iv eLffeXOew aXXa 
t\v ft/ epr)fj.ois TOTTOIS KO.I ffWTjp^ovTO TT/)OS auroi' /cat rj\0cv ira\u> eis Ka$a/>i'aoi//A 
sell ex Marc i. 45 

peculiar in N.T. to Luke and Paul. 
LXX and Classical Gk. 

Kvpic] Mt. and Lk. agree against 
Mk. (W.H. Text) in reading Kvpie. 
But it is not certain that Kvpie. 
should not be read in Mk. too with 
BCLWe 579 700 sah c e ff 2 . Cf. 
Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 309. 

13. If Mt. and Lk. read d/c>yr#s 
in Mk. i. 41 (Daff 2 Ephr) it would 
be natural that they should omit 
it, as they omit v. 43. If they 
read the well-attested (rTrXayyvicrBeis 
the omission is surprising. Lk. 
omits KCU iKadepicrOi) no doubt as 
redundant. Mk. continues (v. 43) 

i^os avrto ei'0ecos 


avrov. The difficulties of 


modern commentators (of. Rawlinson, 
p. 256) in accounting for the be- 
haviour of Jesus were probably felt by 
Mt. and Lk.,who both omit the words. 

14. Lk. reproduces the words of 
Jesus from Mk. almost exactly, ex- 
cept that he turns the first clause 
(Mk. opa fj.njOf.vl fArjolv eiVr^s) into 
indirect speech, replaces v-rraye. by the 
partic. uTreXOtm', transposing oeioi> 
and creavrov, and reads /<a$tos for a. 

The Mosaic Law prescribing the 
offerings for a cleansed leper are in which balances an omission in iv. 42. 


Lev. xiv. if. A similar instruction 
is given to the ten lepers, xvii. 
12 f., q.v. eis paprvpiov aTJTcns] 'as 
a public testimony.' avrois means 
'people in general,' not 'the priests.' 
Note the singular rui tepet 'the 
officiating priest.' But avrois might 
without great difficulty be under- 
stood of ' the priests,' and the 
reading', which appears to have 
been adopted by Marcion, was per- 
haps intended to rule out that in- 
terpretation; with the reading 
the phrase might mean ' that this 
miracle may serve as a testimony 
to you of my power.' "Peut-etre 
Marcion craignait-il que Jesus ne 
parut se soumettre au controle des 
pretros" (Lagrange). 

15. Lk. omits" to mention the 
disobedience of the healed leper, and 
omits to say that the result of the 
fame of Jesus was that he could no 
longer enter into a city. He records 
the spread of the report about Jesus, 
and describes the motives which 
brought the crowds after him. 

1 6. vTro^(j)p(7>v1 A good classical 
word. Only here and ix. 10 in N.T. 

Trpoo-euxoyuei/os] An addition 


1 7 Kat eyevero ev /ua TWV rj^epwv /cal ai)ro? rjv 

/cat rj&av KaO^evou Oaptcratot /cat ^o/^oStSacr/caXot ot 
e\rj\v6oTes etc Tcacriqs /CM///?;? rr}? FaXtXata? fcal 'lovSata? 
'\epova-a\rffj,' /cat Bvva/jbL? Kvpiov rjv et9 TO lacrQat, avrov. 

1 8 /cat IBov avBpes fyepovres eVt K\ivr)<s avOpwirov 05 777; irapa- 
XeXu/<tej>o<?, /cat efyrovv avrov elareveyicelv /cat Oelvau \avrov} 

1 8 0;>cu] add avroi/ BLS : sine addit tfD codd paene onm 

iyf. (|| Mk. ii. 1-12; Mt. ix. 
1-8.) On this occasion Jesus makes 
his power of healing subordinate to 
his power to forgive sins ; the reality 
of the latter power is attested by 
the reality of the former. Did Jesus 
hold that disease was punishment for 
sin ? It is impossible to feel sure 
that the incident and the words of 
Jesus have been exactly recorded. 
The theory of Wrede, Loisy, Bult- 
mann that Mk. ii. 5b-io are a 
later expansion due to the theo- 
logical interest of the early com- 
munity, and that the account of 
the healing of the paralytic existed 
originally without reference to the 
forgiveness of his sins, is stated and 
defended by Rawlinson on Mk. ii. 
i- 1 2. The main difficulty lies in the 
words o mos TOV dvOpiairov, v. IO. 
If this implies a claim to be the 
Son of Man who was expected on 
the clouds of heaven, Jesus cannot 
have thus spoken of himself in public. 
But other explanations of this prob- 
lem are possible. See v. 24 n. The 
literary argument for regarding Mk. 
ii. 5b-io as originally foreign to 
the context is hardly convincing. 
The anacoluthon in vv. 10, n is in 
keeping with Mark's style (of. C. H. 
Turner, J.Th.S. xxvi. pp. 145 f.). 
The only other passage in the Gospels 
where Jesus is related to forgive sins 
is infra vii. 48, and it is to be 
noted that there, as here, the for- 
giveness is put in a declaratory form : 
' thy sins are forgiven,' i.e. by God, 

not 'I forgive thee' (cf. Montefiore, 
S.O. i. pp. 46 f.). 

17. The introd. to the narrative 
is wholly rewritten. Note the char- 
acteristic /cat eyei/ero Ii/ /uu raJf 
r]fjLepu)v KCU . . . and cf. v. 12 supra. 
In Mk. the presence of y/ja/z/irxTets 
is not noted till a later point in the 
story. Besides transposing the state- 
ment, Lk. adds that they had come 
from all Palestine and Jerusalem. 
In Mk. scribes from Jerusalem are 
first mentioned at iii. 22. This is 
in a section of Mk. (on 'casting 
out devils by Beelzebub ') which 
does not appear in the correspond- 
ing place in Lk., and is replaced 
(xi. 14 f.) by a parallel from Q. 
i'o/zoSi8a<TKaAoi, an equivalent of 
ypa/j.[j.aTti<s (v. 21), occurs besides in 
N.T. only Ac. v. 34 ; i Tim. i. 7. 
'lovSaia here has the restricted mean- 
ing 'Judaea.' 

1 8. Kat ISov] Cf. v. 12 supra, n. 
ai/fy>es] four in number, ace. to 

Mk. C7T6 KAl'l'TfS . . . (TVV Tip 

KAii/iSty] Lucan substitutes for the 
vulgar Kpafiarros of Mk. ; cf. Phryn. 
xliv. CTKifjiTrovs Aeye, aAAa fj.rj 
Kpdf3paro<s, and Rutherford ad loc. 
But Kpd/3a.TTo<s occurs Ac. v. 15, 
ix. 33. Also Jo. v. 8 f. ; Epict. 
i. 24. 14. 

TrapaAeAv/zei/os] The usual Greek 
word substituted here and v. 24 for 
7rapa\i>TLKus Mk. (very rare and 
no doubt vulgar ; also in Mt.). 

G{TJTOVV . * . eVwTrioj/ aurou] Add. 
Luc. For tvwTTiov cf. i. 15 n. 



avrov. Kau fjirj zvpovres iroia^ eicreveyKcoo'iv avrov 1 9 
a rov o%\ov dvajSdvres eVt TO Scofta Sici TCOV Kepd/j,a)v 

avrov crvv rw 

et? TO 

rov 'Iijfrov. Kal IScov rr)v iriarLV avrwv elrrev "KvOpajire, 2O 
d(j)(ovraL <TQL at, dfjiapriau aov. Kal r)p%avro St,a\o<yLea-@ai, 2 1 
OL 'ypa/jLfjiareis Kal ol <&apicraioi \eyovre$ Tt? ecrnv ovros 
o? XaXet ftXaarfyrifjiias ; rt? Svvarai, dpaprias dfalvai el 
/jbrj fjibvos 6 ^eo?; eiri'yvov^ Be o Irjaovs Tot/9 StaXo^tcr^toi'? 22 
avrwv cnroKpiOeis elirev Trpo? avrov<; Tt SLaXoyi^ecrOe ev rat? 2 3 
Kapbiais V/AWV ; TI e<mv evKOTTMTepov, elirelv 'Atyecavrai aoi 
at afJLapriai aov, 77 elirelv "Riyeipe Kal irepLirdreL ; 'iva B 24 
e ori 6 vios rov dvOpwirov e%ov<riav e^et eVt rr}? 7779 

ig. TTo/as] sc. uSo?. Local gen., 
cf. xix. 4 e/<eii/r;s (e/cciv^ D) ly/xeAAei' 
8tepx eo "^ at - "Incorrect, since the 
gen. in class. Greek denotes the 
whole area within which something 
goes on" (Blass 36. 13; cf. Moul- 
ton, Prol. p. 73). 

dvafiavres eTrt TO Sw/xa] Implied, 
but not directly stated, in Mk. 



^aAwcri. Wellh. finds 
a contradiction in Mark between 
ttTrecrreyacrav ' unroofed ' and e^opv- 
^avre<s ' breaking through,' and sug- 
gests that the former is due to mis- 
translation of an Aramaic original 
which meant 'they brought him up 
to the roof.' But the supposed 
contradiction does not seem serious 
enough to justify the conjecture. 
The Palestinian house had a flat roof 
covered with earth and an outside 
staircase (cf. Mk. xiii. 15 and parallels, 
Acts x. 9), and with this Mark's 
description seems to agree. Luke 
pictures a roof of tiles, but this 
will be merely his own interpre- 
tation. The use of tiled roofs seems 
not to be attested for Palestine (cf. 
Vincent, Canaan, p. 70 ; Thomson, 

Kompend. d. Pal. Allerlumskunde, 
15, and Klostermann ad loc.). 
It may be noted that syr.sin leaves 

OUt 8ta TWV KfpafJLWV. 

20. ai/$pa>7re] Mk. gives the more 
affectionate address rtKvov. 

21. Tts eYmv . . . /^Aaox^jLuas ;] 
An iambic verse. 

24. 6 wos TOV uvO p<i)-rr^ov~\ The 
evangelists and their readers would 
naturally understand this phrase here, 
as elsewhere, to mean Jesus, and to 
imply the claim that he is the Son 
of Man of Dan. vii., who is to come 
with the clouds of heaven. The 
meaning of the sentence, then, is that 
Jesus as the divine Son of Man re- 
presents God and can forgive sins. 
But an open claim of this character 
during the ministry in Galilee is not 
easy to reconcile with the general 
presentation of the ministry in the 
synoptic Gospels. On this ground 
some critics argue that the whole of 
this section in which Jesus claims to 
remit the paralytic's sins is a later 
growth which has been created under 
the influence of dogmatic belief. But 
'son of man' in Aramaic, as in 
Hebrew, means simply ' man.' It 
may connote an allusion to Dan. vii., 



d(f)ievai, a 

Sot \eyco, 

KOI apa? TO K\IVI$LOV o~ov iropevov et? TOV OLKOV 
2 5 cov. KCL\ Trapa^pfj/jLa avao"ra<$ evwTriov CLVTWV, apas e'(' o 
KaTKLTo, dirrjX.Oev et? TOV OLKOV CLVTOV Sogdfav TOV deov. 
26 Kal eWracrt? e\a{3ev airavTas KOI eBo^a^ov TOV deov, 
l eTrXrjaOrja-av </>o/3ou \eyovTes OTL 

27 Kat 

27 KO.L 
Govvra aurw 

e%rf\0ev Kal ededo~aTO T\<vvr)v 

TavTa . . . Aeuetj/] /cat \da>v ira\iv irapa TTJV 6a\a<r<Tav TOV CTra/coAou- 
Kai irapayoji> eidev Aevec TOV TOV A\(f>atou D cf. Marc ii. 13 

absolution upon David (2 Sam. 
xii. 13). A similar prophetic absolu- 
tion on the part of Jesus would be 
likely to arouse the antagonism of 
the Scribes, and this may lie at the 
foundation of this narrative of con- 
troversy, which, as it stands, is a 
later literary growth. 

upas] Part, for upov Kal . . . Mk. 
Tropevov'] Very common in Lk. (once 
only in Mk. ix. 30), Mk. fora-ye. 

25. Trapaxp^/JLa] Mk. ei'$us, cf. 
iv. 39 n. Soau>i/ TOV 6t.ov\ The 
gratitude of the healed man is peculiar 
to Lk. 

26. Kal e'/orracris eXafitv arrai/ras] 
Mk. OJCTTC e^icrracr^cu Trai'ra?. For 
Lk.'s periphrasis cf. iv. 36 n. 
Kal tirXr)<rOr)(Tav c/>o/:/(n>] Add. Luc. 
Except Mt. xxii. 10, xxvii. 48 
(where it is used literally) Trt/zTrA-r^/zt 
is confined to Lk. in N.T. Frequent 
both in Gosp. and Ac., cf. i. 15, 41, 
67, iv. 28, vi. ii : Ac. ii. 4, iii. 10, 
iv. 8, 31, v. 17, ix. 17, xiii. 9, 45. 

7rapaSoa] Good Greek ; Plato, 
Josephus, Lucian, etc., LXX. Here 
only in N.T. 

2 7'39- ^ e ca M f Levi : a feast in 
his house : controversies with Scribes 
and Pharisees. \\ Mk. ii. 13-22 ; 
Mt. ix. 9-17. In Lk. these pass- 
ages form a connected whole. The 
material is taken over from Mk., 
and his order is, as usual, retained. 

but it need not. Hence here and 
infra vi. 5 ( = Mk. ii. 28) some 
critics favour the interpretation of 
' son of man ' as ' man ' used 
generically. (So Wellh., cf . Einleitung, 
p. 129.) "A man may have this 
authority, impossible as you think 
it to be." This interpretation is 
perhaps supported by Mt. (ix. 8), 
who closes his narrative with the 
words ISo^acrav TOV 6c.ov TOV SOI/TO, 
f^ovartav TotavT^/v TOIS dv6piu7rot,<s. 
But this is hardly decisive. Son 
of Man as used of Jesus in Mt. 
approximates to some extent to the 
later dogmatic use to signify the 
humanity of Jesus (Ign. Eph. xx.). 
Cf. Smith on Mt. ix. 8. This 
prepares for his modification of Mk. 
in the last sentence. He hardly 
means that men in general have, or 
may have, authority to forgive 
sins, but rather that Jesus, who is 
man invested with divine authority, 
has this power, and men (possibly 
the Church) through him. The idea 
that man as man has, or may have, 
authority to forgive sins appears to 
be out of harmony with the spirit 
both of Judaism and of early Chris- 
tianity, and this passage is a pre- 
carious foundation on which to build 
the doctrine. It is impossible: to 
reconstruct with security the words 
that Jesus used. Nathan pronounced 



Aevelv K.a6rj[Mevov eVt TO rekayviov, KOI enre.v avra) 
\ovdei poi. KOL KarakiTTwv nrdvra az/acrra? rjKO\ovOei, avrw. 28 
Kat eVo/T/crez/ &o%r)V fjieydhr/v Aefet9 avrq) ev irj ol/cia avrov ' 2g 
KOI r)V 0^X05 7roA,t9 re\wvS)V KCLI a\\wv 01 rjcrav ^er' avrwv 
Karafceifjievoi. KOI eyoyyv^ov 01 ^apicraloL teal ol <ypa[M/j,aT6L$ 3 
avrwv Trpo? TGI/? /Lta^T/Ta? ctvTov Xe^oyre? Am rt //.era T&V 

evdiere KOI irivere ; KOL airoKpiOels 3 I 


But it is doubtful whether the Mar- 
can order goes behind the evangelist, 
and doubtful whether Mark himself 
intended to connect the feast with the 
call of Levi, or the controversies of 
Mk. ii. 18-22 ( = Lk. v. 33-39) with 
the feast. See notes on vv. 29, 33, 36. 

27. /xeru, ravra gives the true 
force of Tru/Xtf Mk., cf. Wellh. on 
Mk. ii. 13. Lk. omits Mk.'s state- 
ments that he was by the sea, that 
he was followed by multitudes, and 
that he taught them. See above, 
v. i, for an equivalent. 

KCU e$ettcraTo] Mk. /cat Trapaywi/ 
c?Se. Trapayw never occurs in Lk. 
nor Ocdo/j-ai in Mk. 

TeAcin'Tyi/ ofo/icm] Add. Luc. 
The name of Levi's father (rov TOV 
'A/X^cuov Mk.) is omitted. 

28. KctTaAiTrtuv Trai/ra] Add. Luc., 
cf. v. ii supra. Levi illustrates the 
practice of complete renunciation ; 
cf. xiv. 33 oi'Tws ovv ?ra$ e v[j.wv 09 
ov/c aTrordcrcreTcu Trucrif rots eavrov 

6v SiVarat etvai fj.ov 
(peculiar to Lk.). 
UI/UCTTUS] The position after KO.TU.- 
Xt-wi/ Trdvra. is awkward. Possibly in- 
truded from Mt. or Mk. ; om. syr.sin. 

29. Mk. KGU y[vTu.L KaraKeiorOai 
tti'Tuv iv ry OLKM avrov, where it 
is not certain that avrov does not 
mean Jesus. So apparently Mt., 
who omits avrov. Lk.'s paraphrase 
leaves no doubt that he understood 
Levi to have been the host, thus 
making a historical link between the 
two consecutive sections of his source. 

30. eyoyyvfov] According to 
Phryn. cccvi. an Ionic word, which, 
though not dSoKifj.oi' } is best avoided. 
yoyyvfciv, yoyyi'oyzos fairly frequent 
in N.T., but not in Mk. Occurs 
Epict., LXX, and papyri. 

ot <&ap. Kttt ot 
' the Pharisees and the Scribes of 
their party.' Mk. ot ypa/^/zaTeis 
rcui/ <>apurat<i)v. It is implied that 
a scribe was not necessarily (though 
he probably was usually) of the 
Pharisaic party ; cf. Acts xxiii. 9 
T(I>V ypa/}V TOV 

a TI] So Mt. and Lk. for the 
interrogative 6Vt in Mk. In Mark 
the scribes ask the disciples why 
Jesus eats with publicans and 
sinners; Lk. makes the complaint 
refer to the conduct of the dis- 
ciples (eV^tCTc). /cut TTtVere] Add. 

Jesus' habit of consorting with dis- 
reputable persons is strongly attested, 
as well as the offence which he thus 
occasioned. Cf. infra vii. 34 ( = Mt. 
xi. 19) Q. Montefioro and Abrahams 
(Studies, ist ser. pp. 54 f.) urge that 
the synagogue was always ready to 
welcome repentant sinners, but they 
allow that the behaviour of Jesus in 
seeking out sinners implies a new 
attitude which would not accord 
with Pharisaic sentiment. Bultmann 
(O.S.T. p. 8) holds that the saying 
in v. 31 ( = Mk. ii. 17) originally 
existed in isolation, and that the 
scene was created to give it a set- 



[6] 'ITJO~OVS elirev rrpo<$ avrovs Ov ^peiav e^ovcriv ol vyiai- 

32 vovre? larpov d\\a ol /ca/fw? e^ovres' OVK e\rj\v6a 

33 Bitcaiovs d\\d dj^apro)\ov^ et? fjierdvoiav. Ol Be eLirav 
avrov Ol fiad^ral 'Iwdvov vrjarrevova-iv rrvKva KOI 
TTOiovvrai, o/u-otw? real ol rwv Qapua'aiwv, ol Be crol ecrOLovcnv 

34 teal rrivovcriv. o Be IT/O^OU? elrrev TTOO? avrovs M^ Bvvaa'de 

viov? rov 

ev c5 o 


3 5 troifjcrai vijtrrevcrai ; eKevcrovrai Be rjfiepcu, KOI orav d 

air* avrwv o vv/j,(f)Lo<; rore vrja'Teixrovo'LV ev eKeivat,<$ rat? 


om o B 

33 fffdlOVfflV KO.L TTLVOVfflv] OvSeV TOVTWV TTOlOVffLV D G 

ting. But why may not an incident 
as well as a saying have been re- 
called and recorded ? The presence 
of scribes at such a feast, he urges, 
is impossible. It does not seem 
probable. Perhaps the complaint 
was actually made elsewhere when 
Jesus had left the feast. Mk.'s 
account is not strictly inconsistent 
with this, though tSo'v/res (v. 16) 
certainly suggests that he thought of 
them as present at the feast. 

31. ot vyia.ivovre<i\ The parti- 
ciple recurs vii. lo, xv. 27. Mk. 06 

32. KaA-eo-at] 'to bid.' This 
would gain in point if, in the original 
form, Jesus was understood himself 
to be the host. SIKCUOI'?] Ironical. 
ets [j.Ta.votav] A Lucan addition, 
which gives a more conventional tone 
to the saying. For a similar addition 
cf. viii. 12 and Mk. iv. 15. 

33. ot Sc etTrav] i.e. the scribes 
and Pharisees mentioned above in 
v. 30, in spite of the awkward ot 
TWI/ <d?a/Ko-ouW infra. The awkward- 
ness is explained by reference to the 
Marcan source, which reads: /cat 
lycra, i/ ot fj.aO'tjTa.1 'lojavou Kat ot 

/cat Xtyovo-.iv avrw Ata rt . . . Here 
the statement /cat -iycrav ot /xa^ryrat 
. introduces a fresh section, while 

the verbs cp^ovTat and Aeyoncrt are 
best explained as impersonal plurals : 
'the question is asked.' This Mar- 
can idiom (cf. J.Th.S., 1924, xxv. 
pp. 378 f.) is missed both by Mt. and 
Lk. : Mt. represents the complainants 
as disciples of John, while Lk. repre- 
sents them as Pharisees. 

TTVKva /cat Sevyo-ets Trotouj/rat] Add. 
Luc., cf. xi. I in. lo-diovo-t /cat 
Trti/oiKri] For Mk. ou vr]<rTevovo-L. 
There is no contrast to So/ere 15 
TrotoiWat, Hence the correction in 

34. fjLrj 8vvao~0 TOV<S viovs rov 
j/i)/j,^)ioi/os . . . TTODycrat VTycrTeiJcrat ;] 
For Mlc. fj.i] ovvavrai ol viol rov 

35. By transposing /cat from before 
rore. to before orav Lk. destroys 
the rhythmic parallelism of the Mar- 
can saying. The words read as an 
anticipation of the Passion. Wellh. 
thinks that the whole incident has 
originated in an attempt to justify 
the Church for taking over a custom 
of fasting from the disciples of John, 
which Jesus himself had notori- 
ously not observed.. J. Weiss thinks 
that the reply of v. 34 may be 
authentic, and the words of v. 35 
a later embellishment. Kawlinson 
(on Mk. ii. i8f.) suggests that the 
disciples of John were holding an 


. "EXe<yez> Be KOI r rrapa(Bo\'r]V Tcpos avrovs on 
XrjjAa airo IJJLCLTIOV KCLIVOV cr^icra? e7ri/3d\\et eVl 
Tcakaiov el Be ^ye, KOL TO KCLIVOV cr^iVet KOI TW 
M ov crv/iji(j)a)i>r)a-ei / TO eirl^Xrjfjia TO airo TOV KCLIVQV. 
teal ovBels /3aAAei olvov veov et? acricovs TraXatou?* el Be [MJye, 37 
6 olvo? o z/eo? TOU? acr/cov?, /cat airro? eK^vOrjaeTai KOL 38 
l airtiKovvTai' aXXa ot^oz/ peoz/ ei9 aaicovs KCLLVOVS 

[OuSel? Trtooz/ ira\aiov 6e\ei veov Xeyet 7ap 39 
'O TraXato? 


add evffews 

39 ovSw . . . xp r ) ffT s effTiv om D (exc. f g 1 ' 2 q) Ens. 

157 225 aegg arm : x/JT/oTorepos rell 5~. 
codd pier T : om tfBLC* I etc 157 

especial fast in memory of their Moulton-Milligan, s.v. ye. Cf. x. 6, 

executed master, but the mention xiii. 9, xiv. 32. Mk. el <5e p], and 

of the Pharisees coupled with the so B 301 in Mt., where other MSS. 

disciples of John confirms the impres- give ei Se fJ-^ye as here. 

sion that it is the ordinary practice 37. 

In Mk. the verb 

of fasting which is here under dis- a/roAAvrat is used both of wine and 
cussion. For fasting as a practice skins ; both Mt. and Lk. have intro- 
of the early Church see Acts xiii. duced the verb eK^o-Oat of the 
2, 3, xiv. 23, and Did. viii. Cf. also wine, c/v-^eirai Mt. Skin bottles are 
Mt. vi. 16 f., xvii. 21. still in common use in N. Africa and in 

36-38. Two proverbial sayings the East. See also Horn. II. iii. 247 ; 
which illustrate the inability of old Gen. xxi. 14 f. ; Job xxxii. 19. 
tradition to contain new life. 38. /^A^reoj'] 'one must put.' 

36. e'Aeyei/ Se . . . Trpos auroi's The gerundive in -reos here only in 
on] sc. rots <&apia-aiov<s v. 30, cf. N.T. "It is not unknown in the 

papyri, but can hardly have belonged 
to the genuine popular speech." 
Moulton, Prol. p. 222. 

39. This saying is not found in 
probable proceeding of cutting up a Mk., and as it is omitted here by 
new garment to patch an old one is D lat.vt it may not be original in 
only contemplated in Lk. It is Lk. Harnack thinks that it is 
due to editorial change, and is original in Lk. and that its omission 
certainly not an improvement. In in D lat.vt is due to the influence of 
Mk. (and Mt.) the saying only Marcion's text (Marcion 2 , p. 247*). 
concerns the fate of an old garment Its interpolation at this point, 
when patched with undressed cloth. whether it is to be ascribed, as is 

perhaps most probable, to the evang. 
himself or to an early copyist, will 

The verb in protasis have been suggested by the mention 
' If he does not avoid of new wine in v. 38. The saying 

v. 33. But the sentence is an 
editorial insertion by Lk. 

UTTO Ifjiartov KO.LVOV cr\L<ra<s . . . 
TO KULLVUV o-iVet This altogether im- 

So also Mt., for eVt- 

> o\ 
et oe / 


this blunder . . .' 

Otherwise.' A well illustrates the attitude of one who 
classical use. Also in papyri. See >is traditionalist in religion towards 

8 4 


VI. I 'Eyeyero Se ev o-afiftdrw SiaTropevevOat, avrov Sia 

(nropL/jLwv, Kol en\\ov 01 fjLadrjral avrov teal ijaOiov 
2 o-rd%va$ i|r<wpoz/T9 rat? ^epo-Lv. rtz/e? Be rwv 

3 eiTrav Ti rrouelre o OVK e^eaTiv rot? adftftao-LV ; real 
aTTOKpiOels irpos avrovs elirev [o] 'I^crov? OvSe rovro 
dveyvcore o eTroirjcrev AafelS ore eireivaaev avros Kal ol 

4 per avrov ; [&>?] elo~rj\6ev et9 rbi> OIKOV rov 6eov KOI 
royc Aproyc THC rrpoOecewc \a{3wv e<j}a<yev KOI e$Q)KV rot? 

per avrov, ou? OVK e^cffTLV tfjayeiv el firj povovs 
5 lepels ; /cal eXeyev avrois Kupto? ecrnv TOV o-a/3/3dTov 6 

I ev (ra/3/3aTa>] cadd 5eure/)o7rpwrw ACD mult al a f* fT 2 g 1 ' 2 vg syr.hl arm 5" : oin 
pap 4 XBL I etc 169 33 157 b c i'** q 1 syrr(vg. hl-mg) aegg aeth 4 us <-icrrj\6tv'] 

om ws BD post hunc v add D 777 avrr; f]/j,epa deaff-apevos TWO. ep-ya.ofj.ei>ov rw 

crajSjSarw etTre// auru avdpuire a yue;/ oiSas rt Trotets yuaKaptos ei' e: 5e ^77 otSas 
eTrt/caraparos Kat Tra/ja/SaTTjs et rou VQ/J.OV 5 hunc v post 10 transponit D 

the innovations of a new movement 
those whose taste is less cultivated 
are less sensitive. The better attested 
Xp-ijfrTos (as against XP 7 ? " 7 "" 7 " 6 / 305 ) 
gives the better sense. He who 
drinks old wine does not compare old 
and new ; ho is content not to try the 
new. The addition of ei'^ews suggests 
that in time he may change his mind ; 
this introduces another thought and 
weakens the saying. 

i-u. Two controversial encounters 
with Pharisees concerning the observ- 
ance of the Sabbath. \\ Mk. ii. 23- 
iii. 6; Mt. xii. 1-14. 

I. iv o-tt/ifySttToj] The word Sevrepo- 
TrpwTw, inserted after P<inp in 
'Western' authorities and in the 
Byzantine text, has never been 
satisfactorily explained. See Plummer 
ad loc. Its omission is strongly 
supported. The suggestion is plaus- 
ible that the word originated in a 
gloss TT/JOJTW, inserted with reference 
to kv ere^o) crufifiu.Tip v. 6, which 
was afterwards corrected to Sevrepy 
with reference to iv. 31 f. Ci. 
Westcott and Hort, N.T. in Greek, 
ii. p. 58. 


That the disciples ate 
the ears of corn is of course implied, 
though not stated, in Mk. ^w^oi'rcs 
rats X 6 / 30 "''] -AJ SO a Lucan addition. 
i//u>)(u), cogn. with i/'ucu 'to rub,' is 
quoted elsewhere only from the 
medical poet Nicander, Theriaca 629. 

2. TI Trotetre] In Mk. the Pharisees 
complain to Jesus of the behaviour 
of his disciples; Lk. makes the 
Pharisees address themselves to the 
disciples direct. 

3. o eTroi'^crei' Aavei'6] I Sam. xxi. 

4. Lk. and Mt. both omit the 
inaccurate statement in Mk. eVt 
3 A(3ia6ap dp)(t,epiia<$. According to 
i Sam. xxi. Ahimelech was priest 
at Nob at the time of David's visit. 

Tors d/>Toi>s T'/)S 7jy)o#eu-eo)s] On 
this and other expressions for the 
hallowed bread see Swete on Mk. 
ii. 26. 

5. The argument here is more 
satisfactory if o ?;ios TOV dv9pu>7rov 
is made to carry the meaning ' man.' 
Cf. v. 24 n. The precedent cited 
does nothing to establish the right of 
the Messiah to abrogate the Sabbath : 
the whole point is that human need 


tno9 rov dvOpcoirov. 'Qyevero Be ev erepu) era/3 ftdrti) 6 

elo~e\6elv avrov els rijv crvvaywyrjv KOL Bt,Bd<TKeLV' Kal r/v 
dvOpwiros Gicel Kal r) yjelp avrov rj Be^a rjv ^rjpd' Trap- 7 
errjpovvro Be avrov 01 ypafju/jbareis KOI ol <&apio~aioi el ev ra) 
o-a/3/3drq) ^OepaTrevei^, iva evpwaiv rcaryyopelv avrov. avros 8 
Be yBei, rov<; BiaXoyHrftov? avrSiv, elirev Be ru> dvBpl TO> 
%r)pdv e^ovru rrjv %eipa "Ryeipe Kal crrr\Qi et9 TO ^eaov 
Kal avaffras eery. elirev Be [o] 'I^o-ou? vrpo? avrovs g 
'E7T6|Oft)Tw v/LLcis, el e%eo~riv TO) craftfidrw dyadoTroifjo-ai, r) 
KaKOTroifjcrai,, tyvxrjv craxrai ^ dtroXecrai ; /cal 7repL/3\e^lrd- IO 

Traz/ra? avrovs elirev avrw ""E^fcreuvov rrjv %elpd <rov 
o Be eTTOLTjcrev, Kal dire Kar ear dOif] rj %elp avrov. Avrol Be 1 I 
7 ffepairevet ^D al pauc : depaTreuvei B al pier S" 

overrides a merely legal provision. )} Ka/vOTroi^crat ...)} cxTroAecrat] To 

So very clearly in Mk., who prefixes refrain from healing would amount 

the words TO o-d/SftaTov Std TOV to an action positively evil. The 

avOpuiTTov eyevero, Kal ov% o av6pd)7ro<s correct official answer to this question 

Sta TO o-d/3f3aTov (omitted both in would be that healing and medical 

Mt. and Lk.). D transposes this attention are permissible when life is 

verse to follow v. 10 and inserts here, in danger; when life is not in danger 

a striking remark of Jesus upon a they are unconditionally - forbidden. 

man whom he saw working on the See references in S.B. on Mt. xii. 10. 

Sabbath. See critical note. The 10. /cat Tre/u/^A^a^ei/os] Lk. 

source of the saying is unknown. It omits from Mk. the words /X.CT' 

was perhaps, as Loisy remarks, some- o/>y>/s, probably from a sense of 

what too subtle to find a natural reverence. 

place in the Gospel tradition. 1 1 . This incident closes a series 

6. ei/ eT/o< t o o-a/3/3ttT<o] Not in Mk. of controversial encounters between 

'/ 3e^6a] Not in Mk. So in xxii. 50 Jesus and the Pharisees. Mark 

Lk. adds tec Mk. the precise statement concludes his narrative by saying 

that it was the right ear of the High that the Pharisees went out and 

Priest's servant that was cut off. took counsel 'with the Herodia.ns to 

8. at'rbi Se ?/Set . . . avru>v~\ Jesus compass the destruction of Jesus. 

sees their intentions beforehand. A Luke is vaguer. He omits to 

Lucan addition which balances an mention the conspiracy with the 

omission from Mk. infra, v. 10: in 'HpwStaiW (they are not found in 

Mk. (iii. 5) when the Pharisees had Lk., being omitted also at xx. 20 

failed to respond to Jesus' question =Mk. xii. 13) and substitutes a 

he is said to be o-ui/Ai>7roiyzei/os lirl general statement that the scribes 

ry TTGopwo-et T-/;S Kap8ia$ U.VTMV. were full of fury and considered what 

KIU a-Trj9i] Add. Luc. Kal amo-Tcis was to be done. The wording of the 

Add. Luc. verse is characteristically Lucan. 

Q. 7repo)Toj v/zas e/'] Add. Luc. e7r/Y;o-0?y(rai/] Cf. v. 26 n. ai/otas] 


e7r\r/(r0r)(rav avoids, KOL $ie\d\ovv irpos a\\r]\ov<s TL av 

In N.T. only here and 2 Tim. iii. 9. and i. 65. ri av Trouycraiev] Optat. 

Classical, cf. Plato, Tim. 86 B Si'o o c. (Lv in indirect question representing 

ai/ottts yevrj, TO //.et/ pavLav, TO Se a deliberative question in direct 

ufj^aOiav. fjiavta gives the meaning speech. Cf. i. 62, xv. 26 ; Ac. v. 24, 

here. S6eAaAovv] In N.T. only here x. 17. Blass, 66. 3. 


Luke has inverted the Marcan order of this and the following sections, 
transposing the call of the Twelve ( =Mk. iii. 13-19) to precede the healings 
( =Mk. iii. 7-12). Thus the great sermon (Lk. vi. 20 f.) is preceded in Lk. 
as in Mt. (iv. 23-25) by an account of miraculous cures. Possibly this corre- 
sponded to the setting of the sermon in Q. But Mark is Luke's source. The 
variations between Mark and Luke are not more remarkable than in many 
other passages, and some notable omissions may be explained by reference 
to Luke's procedure elsewhere. There is no sufficient basis for the argument 
that Luke follows here a non-Marcan source. 1 

But Luke has skilfully recast his material : at daybreak, after a night 
spent in prayer on the hill-top, Jesus summons his disciples, and chooses 
from them twelve, whom he names Apostles. With these twelve he descends 
from the hill, and takes his stand upon the level ground surrounded by a 
multitude of disciples, as well as a crowd drawn from all Palestine and Jeru- 
salem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon. 'The sick are first healed. Then, 
lifting up his eyes on the assembled disciples, he speaks. 

The number of ' the twelve ' corresponds with the number of the twelve 
tribes. Cf. xxii. 29 Kayw Stari^e/zat {yziV, Ku6ta<5 Stcflero /AOI 6 TTttTryp [JLOV 
f3acrLXeiav } tVa . . . Ka@r)<r6e CTTI Opovwv ras StuSe/ca <{)vX.u.<s KpivovT&s 
TOV 'Icrpa^A. But J. Weiss (Das Urchristentum, p. 34) notes that in 
this passage the number of thrones is not specified, as it is in the (later) form 
of the saying in Mt. xix. 28. This, he thinks, illustrates the origin of the 
idea of ' the twelve apostles ' : twelve tribes demand twelve judges, and 
he argues that the conception of ' the twelve ' is a later creation of the 

1 As maintained by Vincent Taylor, Behind the Third Gospel, pp. Si f. It would 
be a remarkable coincidence if the supposed Proto-Luke prefaced' the great sermon 
with two sections in juxtaposition so closely parallel to two sections at the 
conclusion of the first part of Mark, which ex hypolhesi is quite independent. Dr. 
Taylor's numerical method of dealing with the words peculiar to each evangelist is 
not satisfactory without reference to the actual similarities and dissimilarities in 
each case. 


Church which has been read back into the lifetime of Jesus. The later origin 
of the idea, he holds, is confirmed by the discrepancies between the lists of 
names. Harnack, Loisy, E. Meyer ( Ursprung u. Anfange, i. pp. 296 f .), on the 
other hand, maintain that the choice of ' the twelve ' by Jesus in his lifetime 
is historical. Only so can the existence of the group and its general recognition 
(attested by I Cor. xv. 5) be satisfactorily explained. Moreover the inclusion 
of the traitor Judas in the list is inexplicable, except on the assumption that 
historically it was so. 

The choice of ' the twelve,' corresponding to ' the twelve tribes of Israel,' 
assuming it to go back to Jesus himself, corroborates other evidence that Jesus 
thought of himself as Messianic King. 

'E^eVero Se eV ral<$ f]fj,epai<$ ravTais e%e\6elv avrov el<? 1 2 
TO 0/009 irpoo'ev^acrBai, KOI rjv SiavvKrepevcov eV rrj irpoo~- 

TOV Qeov. Kal ore eyevero rjfjiepa, Trpoare^wvria-ev TO 1/9 13 
avrov, Kal e/cXea/iez;o9 air avrwv ScoBeKa, 0^9 

12-13. yei/TO Se . . . eyei/ero 
By his mention of the prayer, 
the night-long vigil and the dawn, 
Lk. emphasises the momentous 
issues of the choice which was to be 
made. Mk. has simply /cat ava- 
/JutVet ets TO opos. Butcf. Mk. i. 35, 
vi. 46 (from the long section omitted 
by Lk.), where Mk. speaks of Jesus 
retiring to the mountain or the 
desert for solitary prayer. Stai'u/<re- 
pe iW] Good Greek. Xen., Jos., Diod., 
etc. Here only in N.T. irpocrev\y 
ToD #eo C] irpo(Tv\->] c. gen. of God, 
here only. But cf. Wisdom xvi. 28 
ev^apLcrTLav crov (i.e. TOV Otov) ; Mk. 
xi. 22 TTicrnv Oeou. 

13. TrpoGre.<j)u>vr)O~i> TOV? fj 
avrov /cat cKAeAmevos air* 





Lk. interprets oi)? ?/t/eAei> as a 
larger group from which the twelve 
are selected. But it is not clear 
that Mk. intended this. Lk. no 
doubt has in mind the solemn choice 
of missionaries in the early Church, 
cf. Ac. xiii. i f. 

ovs Kal uTroo-ToAous 

These words are attested for Mk. 
iii. 14 by the great Uncials, but, as 
they are there omitted by D latt. 
syr.sin, it is probable that they are 
not original and have been inter- 
polated from Lk. into Mk. In 
Mk. the twelve ot SioSe/cd are only 
once (vi. 30) called ctTroo-ToAot, and 
there the word has an especial 
appropriateness, as the twelve are 
just returned from a missionary tour. 
Mt. also speaks only once of ot 
Suj8e/<a caroo-ToAot (x. 2 TWJ/ oe 


eVrti/ TavTa). He prefers SwSe/ca 
/xa^/rat (ot SioSeKu, absol. only Mt. 
x. 5, xxvi. , 14, 47). In Jo. the 
word ttTroVroAos occurs only in xiii. 
1 6, where it is expressly used in its 
etymological sense: ot'3e aTro'crroAos 
/xet^wi/ TOU Tre/ii/'avTos ai'roi'. Lk. 
on the other hand, while frequently 
using ot SwSexa like Mk. (viii. i, 
ix. i, 12, xviii. 31, xxii. 3, 47), 
frequently also speaks of the twelve 
absolutely as ' the apostles ' (cf. ix. 
10, xvii. 5, xxii. 14, xxiv. 10) and 
here assigns the origin of the name 
to Jesus himself. The evidence 



14 avrocrToX-ou? utvofjLCKTev, 2<Ljj,(ova bv KOI wvo/jLCKrev Tlerpov 
KOI 'AvSpeav rov dSe\(j)oi> avrov Kal 'laKOjftov KOI 'laidvrjv /cal 

1.5 Qi^nnrov KOL li$apdo\o/jialov Kal M.a06aio.v Kal a)/j,av [Kal] 
'Id/ca)/3ov 'A\(f)aiov /cal 2<ifJL(ova rov Ka\ovfjievov ZiffXcorrjv /ecu 

I 6 'lovSav '\aKO)/3ov Kal 'lovoav ^\ff/capt,o)6 09 eyevero Trpo 

1 7 Kal Kara/Bas /JLGT avrwv earrj eVt TOTTOV vreoivov, KOI 

7roA.i;9 fJLCtOrjTwv avrov, KOI Tr\r)0os TroXu rov \aov diro 7rdar)<$ 
T/79 Ioi/Sata9 Kal 'lepovffaXrjfjt, teal r//9 7rapa\lov Tvpov Kal 

15 KCU IaW|8oi' ^sD*L 69 etc al : om /cat B al pier ~ 17 lepoi'o-aX?;^] add 

KCU Ih/aams J<* : /cat r?/s JIe/}eas W ; item a b c f f 2 1 q et trans fret inn 

points to this being a Later usage : 
the title u/roo-roAos is frequently 
given to Paul and Barnabas, and, in 
Rom. xvi. 7, to Andronicus and 
Junias. i Cor. xv. 5 f . seems to 
distinguish ' all the apostles ' from , 
' the twelve.' For Jewish aTrmrroAoi 
and their functions in the dispersion 
cf. Euseb. in Is. xviii. i f. ; Cod. 
Theod. xvi. 8. 14 ; Jer. ad Gal. i. i ; 
Epiph. adv. Haeres. 30. 4 quoted 
Harnack, Mission and Expansion, E.T. 
vol. i. pp. 410 f. This was probably 
the source of the original Christian 
use of the term. The application 
of the term to ' the twelve ' as 
' the apostles ' par excellence (cf. Rev. 
xxi. 14) will be a later usage. Lk. 
omits the twofold purpose assigned 
in Mk. for the choice of the twelve : 
iva Sxriv /ZT O.VTOV /cat u/a UTTO- 
crreAAiy OUJTOVS Kr}pvo~(retv. 

14-15. Lk.'s list of the twelve 
is repeated in Acts i. 13-14, where all 
the names (except Judas Iscariot) 
recur, though in a slightly different 
order. The present list agrees with 
Mk. except in the following points : 
(i) As in Mt. x. 2 f. Andrew is 
denoted as Simon's brother (cf. Mk. 
i. 1 6) and his name is transferred 
to follow Simon's. (2) As in Mt. 
the surname of James and John, 
Boavepyes, is omitted. Lk. also 
omits to repeat here that they were 

sons of Zebedee and brothers, cf. 
v. 10. (3) OuSSaibs, who in Mk. pro- 
cedes 2t/xioi/ 6 Kavai/atos, is omitted 
and replaced by 5 IovSs 'laKtaftov 
(and in Ac. i. 14), who follows 5)i/xwi/. 
Lk.'s change of order is perhaps 
occasioned by the desire to avoid the 
sequence James son of Alphaeus, 
Judas son of James. A second Judo 
oi'X o 'Iir/cu/Kwr?/? appears in 
John xiv. 22. It is to be noted that 
the name Levi does not occur. He 
was son of Alphaeus (Mk. ii. 14) and 
therefore perhaps brother of James. 
Mt. ix. g substitutes the name 
MttT^atos for Levi in the account of 
Levi's call. 

So Lk. correctly translates Mk. 2t'/xww 
r<V KavavaLov, one of the party of 
the Zealots. Cf. Schiirer, i. 486. 

17-19. These verses are greatly 
abbreviated from Mk. iii. 7-12. Lk. 
adds that the multitudes came 

Kal iu.0f}vu,i UTTO TMV 
aiJTajv, where a/cofcrat leads' 
up to the sermon which is to follow 
(Mk. a/coiWres oVa cTrotet), and he 
adds the conclusion ort Svvauis . . . 
Travras. He changes the scene, 
which in Mk. is by the seashore, to 
a level place, and necessarily omits 
the order of Jesus that a boat should 
wait on him (cf. v. i supra). He 
also omits the testimony of the 


"StScovos, 01 rj\9av aKovcrai avrov teal Ia6r}vai CITTO rwv voawv I 8 
avrwv Kal ol evo r x\ovp,evot, CLTTO irvevfMaTwv aKaOdprwv 
edepaTrevovro' teal Tra? o 0^X09 etyjrovv airreaOai avrov, 19 
OTL Svvafiis Trap* avrov e^ijp^ero Kal laro rrdvras. 

possessed and the rebuke of Jesus Judaea, Idumaea, and the country 

(Mk. nb-12), which add nothing to across Jordan separately mentioned in 

iv. 31. Common to Mk. and Lk. Mk.), Jerusalem, and the sea-board 

are (i) the gathering of the multitude of Tyre and Sidon ; (2) the healing of 

from Judaea (iratra 'lovSaia in Lk. the sick and possessed, and (3) their 

is prob. meant to include Galilee, pressing upon him to touch him. 


The setting assigned by the evangelist to the Sermon is an indication of 
its importance as the proclamation of the new morality (see introd. to vv. 

vv. 2ob-26 pronounce a reversal of the present order. The poor, the 
hungry, the weeping, the persecuted are blessed : corresponding woes are 
pronounced upon the rich, the full, the happy, and the popular. 

vv. 27-35 enforce the law of love towards all, even enemies, and the duty 
of non-resistance to violence and importunity, closing with an appeal to the 
example of the Most High, who is good to the unthankful and to the evil. 

vv - 36-38. Mercy and generosity must be shewn to others, if man would 
receive mercy and generosity. 

vv ' 39"4 2 - The blind cannot guide or judge aright. 

vv. 43-45. The tree is known by the fruit it bears, and the man by that 
which he brings forth from the treasure of his heart. 

v. 46. " Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not what I say ? " 

vv. 47-49. Two comparisons illustrate the behaviour and the fate of the 
man who hears and does, and of the man who hears and does not. 

The resemblances between this Sermon and the Sermon on the Mount 
(Mt. v.-vii.), both in contents and in structure, are too close to be accidental : 
both begin with beatitudes, and both end with the comparison to the two 
builders. The ' woes ' (vv. 24-26) are peculiar to Lk., but practically the 
whole of the rest of Luke's sermon has its counterpart in Mt. v.-vii., except 
vv. 39, 40, 45 (these are paralleled elsewhere in Mt.). With some slight, 
but significant, exceptions, the order of the teaching in Lk. reappears in 
Mt. Thus it may be taken as certain that some common source lies 
behind Mt. v.-vii. and Lk. vi. 20 f. The Sermon in Mt., however, includes 
also a large body of discourse which Lk. gives in a different connexion 


(Mt. v. i3=Lk. xiv. 34 ; Mt. v. 15 =Lk. xi. 33 ; Mt. v. i8=Lk. xvi. 17; 
Mt. v. 25, 26 =Lk. xii. 58, 59 ; Mt. v. 32 =Lk. xvi. 18 ; Mt. vi. 9-13 =Lk. xi. 

2-4 ; Mt. vi. 19-33 = Lk - xii - 33-34 J xi - 34-35 J xvi - 13 x - 22-31 ; Mt. vii. 
7-11 =Lk. xi. 9-13 ; Mt. vii. 13-14 =Lk. xiii. 24), as well as material peculiar 
to himself notably the teaching on almsgiving, prayer, fasting (Mt. vi. 1-8, 
1 6- 1 8). It is a reasonable inference that, here as elsewhere, Mt. has 
combined together material which he found scattered in his sources, and it 
seems likely that, in general, Luke preserves more nearly the grouping of the 
common source. But it is hard to determine exactly the scope and character 
of the great Sermon in the common source. Is the formal contrast between 
the Old Law and the New, which dominates Mt. v. 21-48, the creation either 
of the evangelist or his special source (as Streeter would hold), or did Lk., 
like Mt., find it in Q ? Loisy seems disposed to favour the second 
hypothesis : " On peut douter que Luc ait trouve dans la source et que la 
redaction ait trouve dans Luc les preceptes de la morale chretienne deja mis 
en rapport avec les prescriptions mosai'ques dont la relation de Matthieu 
les presente comme le perfectionnement . . . 1' opposition etablie entre la 
morale juive et la morale chretienne devait etre assez deplaisante au redacteur, 
qui enseignerait plutot 1'identite ; si Luc avait ici au moins une partie des 
antitheses qui sont dans Matthieu, le redacteur a mieux aime les supprimer. 
c. xvi. 17-18 en est un debris qu'il aura transpose en faisant valoir la perma- 
nence de la Loi" (pp. 203 f.). Streeter, on the other hand, holds that Lk. vi. 
20 f. substantially reproduces Q. But a close examination of Lk. in tho light 
of the parallels in Mt. suggests that there has been editorial re-arrangement 
in both Gospels. Where Lk.'s arrangement appears to be secondary and 
artificial, a different and probably more original grouping is found in Mt. 
See notes on vv. 29-30 and on v. 31. The same is perhaps true of vv. 39, 40. 
On the other hand, logical connexion is not necessarily an indication of fidelity 
to a primitive source. Thus, in the last section of the Sermon, the better 
connexion in Mt. seems to have been imposed by the evangelist upon 
loosely assorted material, which is more closely reproduced in Lk. See 
note on vv. 43-45. 

2O Kal avro? eTrdpas rovs o(0aXyuoi>? avrov et? TOI>? 

20-23. The four beatitudes are is an interpolation) four further 

closely parallel to the first, fourth, beatitudes. All the beatitudes in 

second and last beatitudes in Mt. v. Mt. except the last are expressed in 

Mt. also contains five, or (if v. 5 the third person. Streeter suggests 



Matcdpioi ol TTTor^ot, on v/jierepa ecrrlv f) ftao~L\eia rov deov. 

/jLafcdpLoi, ol Treivwvres vvv, on ^opracrO^a'eo'Oe. 2 I 

fjuarcdpioi ol K\aiovres vvv, on, <ye\dcrere. 

fjbatcdpLou ecrre orav fjLLo-ijeraxrLV v/jt,as ol av6p(arroi, teal orav 22 
d<l)Opio~(ao~LV v/u-a? Kal ovei$io~a)o~iv /cal GKJBd\w(n,v TO ovo/Jia 
vfjiwv a>9 rrovrjpov eveica rov vlov rov avOpwrrov ^dprjre 23 
ev eiceivr) rf) rj/jiepa Kal GKiprrjcrare, i$ov yap 


that Mt. has conflated four beati- 
tudes from Q, all originally, as still 
in Lk., in the second person, with 
another group of beatitudes in the 
third person from another source. 
2O. /xtt/<u/Hot 01 TrriaX 01 '] For ot 

7rTU>)('04 Mt. giveS 01 7TTO)X04 T(0 

irvevpan. Similarly in his version 
of the next beatitude, for ot TTCI- 
Mt. gives ot Trcii/w^res /cat 
TT)I/ St/<atoo"iV^v. These 
will be interpretative additions to 
the simpler and fresher language of 
the source preserved by Lk. (so 
Wellh.). Not mere poverty is denoted 
in Lk. Poverty and piety are 
closely linked in the Psalter (Pss. x., 
xxxiv., xxxv., cxl.), and the beatitude 
of Jesus must be interpreted in the 
light of this usage. Cf. also Is. Ixi. i 
' to preach good tidings to the meek ' 
(quoted above, iv. 18), trans. LXX 
ei'uyye/lurutr^cu Trraj^ots. i'ft. e. f] T. 6eov] Ja. ii. 5 is probably a 
reminiscence of this beatitude : 
o $eos ee/\.euTO roi'S TTTW^OU 


feeding of animals which cling to the 
word in class. Gk., e.g. Plato, Eep. 
ix. 586 A. Cf. ix. 17; Jo. vi. 26; 
Phil. iv. 12; Ja. ii. 16; Ps. cvi. 
(cvii.) 9 oTt e^opravev ^'X 1 ) 1 ' Ke1 ' 7 /^ 
Kal \l/v 



' weeping ' and ' laughter ' Mt. gives 
'mourning' (Trev0ovvT<s) and 'com- 
fort' (7rapa/cA?7#'/ycroi'Tai). 

22. K/i?(xA(00"t TO OVO[J.a. VfJ.H)V (US 

irovrjpov] Wellh. thinks that this 
represents a Biblical idiom " to bring 
forth (i.e. to spread abroad) a bad 
name upon," Deut. xxii. 19 (LXX 
trans, by e'//je/)eti/). If so, Lk. has 
misunderstood his text and changed 
the meaning by giving an article to 
uvofjiu.. It is better to suppose that 
the awkward Gk. phrase in Mt. 
etTroKri Tray irovijpov i<a6' vfjiiov is more 
original. Lk. has recast the saying 
and emphasised the thought of ex- 
pulsion from society by the addition 
of U</>O/HO-WO-I, and by the rewriting 
of this clause. l/oSaAeiV, 'cast out' 

K\i)pov6[jLov<s TV)S /^ttcrtAetas; , that or ' reject.' TO oVo/xa, i.e. your name 
the kingdom is to be understood as as Christians. Cf. Ja. ii. 7 ; i Pet. 

a future compensation is shewn by 
the woe on the rich (v. 24) to whom 
it is said: (ATTC^TC rrjv irapaKXtfo-tv. 

21. ot 7reii>u!t/Ts] Like ot TTTW^OI 
not to be pressed too literally, cf. Is. 
Iv. 2. vvv hero and with ot /cAui'oi/Tes 
is not represented in Mt., and is 
perhaps a Lucan addition. of Mt. x (U y Te K(U 

Xo/mxo-^/yo-eo-^e] In late Gk. this O-/C/./)TU<O here only and i. 41, 44 in 
word has lost the associations with the N.T. 

iv. 14, 16. 

efi/c/ca TOU vlov rov u.vdpwov'] Mt. 
eVe/ccy e/zou. 

23. IvtKeivy T)/ -jy/ue/oci] Add. Luc., 
cf. vvv supra v. 21. 

Xa/jryTe . . . /cat o"Kt/)T7yo~aTe] An 
idiomatic aorist for the Pres. Imper. 



V/JLWV 7ro\vs ev rw ovpavw' Kara ra avra jap ercoiovv 
rot? 7rpo(j)rirai<; ol irarepe^ avratv. 

24 Tl\rjv oval v[uv rot? TrXoucrtot?, on, drre^ere Trjv rraadK\r\Q-iv 


25 oval VJMV, ol ep/TrerrK^cr^evoi vvv, on rreivucrere. 
oval, ol ye\a>i>re<? vvv, ori irevOqcrere KOL K\avcrere. 

26 oval orav aXw? t/yna? elrcwo-iv rruvres ol avOpwirot,, Kara 

ra avra yap erroiow rot? -v/revSoTrpo^Tat? ot' 


ISovyap . . . ovpavw] " This does 
not mean that the reward will be 
enjoyed in heaven and not upon the 
regenerated earth in the Messianic 
age. It means that the reward is 
already, as it were, existent and pre- 
pared for you with God in heaven " 
(Montefiore). The idea of reward is 
present though not prominent in the 
ethical teaching of Jesus; cf. v. 35 
infra, Mt. vi. I f., xx. i f. It 
is never set forward as the motive 
for right conduct. The affirmation 
is made that conduct of a certain 
kind will, in fact, bring its reward. 
"If this is to be regarded as de- 
moralising ' Eudaemonism, " most of 
the moralists who have seriously 
believed in immortality will incur 
the same condemnation" (Rashdall, 
Conscience and Christ, pp. 290 f.). 
Montefiore (S.G. ii. p. 41) complains 
that many Christian theologians have 
caricatured the * eudaemonism ' of 
Rabbinic theology. In fact "the 
eudaemonism is tempered by several 
other and very different strains." 
"The familiar doctrine of Lishmah 
... is the best proof that the motive 
of reward was regarded as the lower 
and less desirable motive." Yet, 
he allows, " it is true both that there 
is too much of measure for measure 
and of merit in the Rabbinic litera- 
ture, and that there are some 
noble utterances against measure for 

measure and against human good- 
ness or the service of God meriting 
reward in the teaching of Jesus." 
The idea of reward as purely qualita- 
tive and identical for all (Mt. xx. 
i- 1 6), and the idea that service is a 
mere duty which cannot merit reward 
(Lk. xvii. 9), he finds to be 'new' 
and distinctive elements in the teach- 
ing of Jesus. See also McNeile, St. 
Matthew, p. 54. 

Kara TO. aura . . . avr)v\ Mt. 
yap I8i<aav TOT'? 7r/oo<r/ras 
, which Harnack and 


Loisy take to be the more original, 
the persecuting Jews not yet being 
regarded from without (ol Trare^es 
aiJTtui/). Wellh. thinks that the 
difference originates in different 
readings of the Aramaic original. 
Lk. read daq* damaihon as subject 
of the verb, and Mt. daq* damaikon 
in appos. to ' the prophets.' 

24-26. The four ' woes ' which 
follow balance exactly the preceding 
beatitudes. They are peculiar to 
Lk., and were perhaps not part of 
his source. They are not addressed to 
the disciples then present, but to the 
rich and successful who are absent. 
The disciples are again addressed at 
v. 27 V/MV Se Aeyw TCKS di<ovov(Tiv. 

24. 7rA.?yi/] A favourite word with 

26. KaXtos vyxus ei'vraxrii/] This 
construction c. accus. after a phrase 




V/MV \eya) rot9 atcovova-iv, dyaTrdre TOI>? e^0pov<; 27 
/caA,w9 Trotetre TO?? ^LLGTOVCTLV v[Mas, ev^oyeire rov? 28 
vfj,a<s, Trpocrev^eaOe Trepl TWV eTrripea^ovTwv 


aX\r)V, Kal UTTO rov aipovros <rov TO ifjuurLov teal rov 
yirojva fjirj KCt)\va"r}$. iravTi aiTOvvri are SuSov, Kal airb 30 

have no equivalent in Mt. Rom. 
xii. 14 provides a close parallel : 
ei'Aoyerre roi'S SiwKovras, cij/VoyetTe 
Kal p) Karapatrde. The whole para- 
graph in Rom. echoes this teaching 
of Jesus : cf. also I Cor. iv. 12; 
I Pet. ii. 23. 

7T6/H T(0l' eTT^/Oea^OJ/TWl/] Mt. VTTtp 

r(ot/ SiwKot/Ttoi'. eTT^pea^co, ' to molest,' 
' to insult.' Freq. in papyri ; class. ; 
in N.T. here only and I Pet. iii. 16. 

29. T(3 TVTTTOVTk (Tc] Mt. OOT6S 

ere pairifa. Suidas pa.TTi(rai' Traroicr- 
cretv Tiyv yvudov a.7rX.y rfj \^pL 
A vulgarism. TO /juTricr/xa OVK ei/ 
Xpyfret Phryn. clii: Mt. then prob. 
preserves the original which Lk. 
has refined, evrt TV)V crtayoi/a] Mt. 
ets Ti/f Se^tai/ crtayoi/a croi). Trape^t] 
Prob. another Lucan improvement. 
Mt. crrptyor. 

Kal U.TTO . . . KtoAwr^s] The rob- 
ber seizes the outer garment (ifuinov) 
and is not to be refused the under 
garment (X'TOJV). Mt. xal TCJ) tit- 


crou Aa/3eti/, etches avTco Kal TO 
ifiaTioi'. The adversary inMt. resorts 
to legal proceedings, not violence, and 
claims the x""toi>, and the injunction 
is that the i/xaTiov is to be given too. 
30. Trui'Ti aiTovvrt] Perhaps an 
editorial strengthening of T(p airovvn 
(Mt.), cf. v. 28, xi. 4. Kal (XTTo 
ToG . . . a-atre/,] This general 
injunction, which seems to add little 
to v. 2gb, is probably editorial. 
So Harnack, S.J. p. 60. The teach- 
ing of the corresponding verse in 

Mt. (/<U6 TOV #e/\.OVT, U7TO (TOV 

like / ( is correct but 
unusual in N.T. It is a slight con- 
firmation of the hypothesis that the 
'woes' were not in the source. 
The dat. TOIS ^ci'SoTrpoc/^Tttis after 
the similar phrase Kara TO, av~a balances Tots 7iy)o</>v;Tous v. 23. 
Below, v. 27, KttAxos governs the 
dat., but c. accus. v. 33. 
27-35. Love towards enemies is 
the ruling thought of this section, 
finally resumed at v. 35 and enforced 
by appeal to the example of God. 
There is close parallel to Mt. v. 
44-48. Combined with this is teach- 
ing on the patient endurance of evil, 
v v. 29-30. It is to be noted that in 
vv. 29-30 the 2nd pers. sing, of the 
imperat. is used, but that in the 
preceding and following verses the 
plural form is found. This suggests 
conflation of sources. Verses 29-30 
are closely parallel to Mt. v. 39-42, 
and in Mt. these verses are a 
distinct section. The last clause 
of this section in Mt. on the 
duty of lending has a somewhat 
longer counterpart in Lk., vv. 
34-35. Here too the present group- 
ing in Lk. may well be due to 
conflation : the duty of lending does 
not fall in happily with the general 
duties of dyarrav and 
Verse 31 ' The Golden Rule ' has also 
been probably intruded. In Mt. 
it occurs in another context, vii. 12. 

27. Tots a/coi'ovcri] See above on 
tw. 24-26. 

28. KoAws Trotetre . . . KUT- 
a/)w/zi/oi>s u/xa's] These two clauses 



34 x a P' s 

om (ffTiv B c 

3 1 TOV alpovros TCL era /AT) aTrarret. Kal Ka6co<; 6e\er i'va 

32 TTOIWO'LV VfUV Ol dv6p(i)7TOi, TTOieiTG aVTOfc? O/AOtCO?. Kal 

el dyairdre TOU? dyaTrwvras v/jids, iroia VJJLLV 

Kal yap ol dfjiaprwKol TOVS dyaTrwvra? aurou9 d> 

33 Kal [yap] eav dya007roiiJT TOVS dyaOoTroiovvras vyu-a?, 
Troia vfuv %/3i? ecrTLV ; Kal OL dfji,aprw\ol TO avro Trotovatv, 

34 Kal eav Bavicrrfre Trap a)V eXvrt^eTe \afBeiv, iroia vfjuv %/3t9 
[ecrrtz/] ; /cal djJiaprwKol d/j,apra)\oi^ Savi^ova-iv iva diro- 
33 KCU 7a/> codd jiaene omn : om yap 

8aviira.(r6ai fir) u.iro(TTpu(j)f)s) appears 
later, w. 34, 35. 

31. |j Mt. vii. 12, where to the 
Rule is added : oSros ydp eVrtv 6 
VOJJLOS KILL OL Trpo(])T)TOii. The formu- 
lation of the Golden Rule in this its 
positive form appears to be original 
with Jesus. In its negative form it 
was clearly formulated by Hillel, 
Sabbath 3ia, "That which thou 
hatest, do not to thy fellow ; this is 
the whole Law, and all the rest is 
commentary," and in Tobit iv. 15 o 
/zicreis fJLrjSevl Trotryfrr/s. The negative 
form is also found in the Western 
text of the Apostolic Decree (Ac. xv.) 
and in Did. i. 2, and is presupposed 
in Rom. xiii. Also Philo (ap. Eus. 
Praep. viii. 7), (i rts e^^atpet, 
fir] Troieiv avrov. Partial parallels 
from classical writers will be found 
in Wettstein, i. p. 341, of which the 
most striking is Isocr. Nic. 61 a 

TttUTO, TOIS a/\A.06S 

(cited by Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 
c. liv. n. 36, in his indictment of 
Calvin in the matter of Servetus). 
But this, as the context shews, is not 
intended as a general ethical maxim. 
King Nicocles is addressing his 
subordinate officials, and the sentence 
quoted is to be expounded in the 
light of ' 49 supra TOIOVTOVS e 
r) TTC/H rov<s a/XAovs olov Trcp 

irepl lyzas d^tovre yi'yvecr&u. See 

Jacob Bernays, Ges, Abhandl. i. p. 
274 f. ; Abrahams, Studies, i. p. 21. 
The words quod tibi fieri nonvis, alteri 
ne feceris, which Severus (Vita, Hist. 
Aug. c. 51) 'inscribed on his palace, 
audierat a quibusdam sive Judaeis sive 
Christianis. The Golden Rule in its 
negative form was prescribed by 
Confucius, Analects, Bk. xv., c. xxiii. 
(Legge, Chinese Classics, i. p. 301): 
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there 
one word which may serve as a rule 
of practice for all one's life ? " The 
Master said, " Is not Reciprocity such 
a word ? What you do not want done 
to yourself, do not do to others." 

32. We return to the injunction 
to love enemies. X"/ ts ( a Lucan 
word ; not in Mk. or Mt.), ' favour,' 
i.e. from God ; equivalent in meaning 
to /xr$os v. 35. Mt. TLVO. fua-Ouv 
c'^ere; For d/zaprwAoi, vv. 32, 33, 
Mt. gives first reAwi/a/-, then WVLKO'L. 
It is hard to say whether Mt. has 
given a Judaic colouring to a more 
general form of speech preserved in 
Lk., or whether Lk. has generalised 
a Judaic original in the interest of 
Gentile readers. Probably the latter. 

33. uyaOo-jroi-TjTc c. an object here 
only in N.T. Cf. v. 26 supra. Mt. 
V. 47 reads edv d<ri7<icni<rQe roi'S 
dSeA</joi>s vfiMV f.iovov, which Lk. 
probably found in his source and 
interpreted. (So Harnack, S.J. p. 62.) 

34. On this verse, which has no 



KOI ecrrai o 


~\,d/3(oo-iv ra laa. irK^v ayaTrare rovs e^Opovs vfjL&v teal 3 5 
KOI Savi&re (JLy 

VjULWV 7TO\V<i, KOb <T6Cr06 Viol 

ecrriv eVl roi9 d^apicrrov^ KOI Trovrjpovs. YiveaOe 36 
35 fjL-r)dei> ABDL codd paenc omn latt aegg : /wjSej/a K\Vn* 489 syrr 

counterpart in Mt. v. 43-47, see 
above on vv. 27-35. 

35. /ArySei/ aTreA.Ta^oi'Tes] The con- 
text imperatively demands the mean- 
ing ' without hoping to receive 
anything back.' So Vulg. (cod. 
Am. and others), ' nihil inde spe- 
rantes,' and A.V. This meaning of 
a7re/\.7ri'{to is unparalleled. The vb. 
is not uncommon in the later Gk., 
but it consistently means elsewhere 
' to despair ' or ' to despair of.' So 
Old Lat. 'nihil desperantes' and 
R.V. in this place. But this inter- 
pretation cannot be reconciled with 
the context. The required interpre- 
tation of a7reA.7rt{bi/res is perhaps 
eased by aTroAdySajcri supra, so 
that tt7reA7rt^ovTes = cA-Trt^oi/res OLTTO- 
Aa/^eti'. So Field, Otium Norvic. iii. 
p. 40. X and a few other MSS., sup- 
ported by the Syriac versions, read 
fj-r/Seva aVeAjri^ovres. This would 
mean ' despairing of nobody,' and is 
so translated in the Syriac versions. 
This again is out of harmony with 
the context, which requires an anti- 
thesis to tVa a7roAa/?OKrt ra t'cra. 
The support of the Peshitto has 
been claimed for assigning a tran- 
sitive meaning to u7reA7rt< ) 'bi'Te$ 
'causing no man to despair.' But 
Field (I.e.) shews that this is a 
misunderstanding of the Syriac, 
and, in the passages adduced from 
Greek (Ecclus. xxvii. 21 and Anth. 
xi. 114), the ordinary meaning of 
"7reA7riw yields a better sense. The 
passage in Ecclus. xxvii. 16 f . describes 
throughout the fate of the unfaithful 
friend, not of the man betrayed. 

eowfle viol 'YtWov Mt. 

OTTWS yet'/ycr$e viol rov Trarpbs 
TOU ev rot<s ovpavois. "Y^icrros absol. 
and without art. also i. 32, 35, 76. 
Freq. in LXX (e.g. Ps. Ixxxi. (Ixxxii.) 6 

J\T /)'> \e\ e<\/> i / 

eyoi etTra t/eot ecrre, /cat vtot ly/LCTTov 
Trai/res) and in late Hellenistic Jewish 
lit. Cf. Bousset, R.J. p. 310. 

on ttUTos . . . 7roi'?7/3ous] WelUa. 
thinks that this clause has been 
added to provide a connexion with 
v. 36, and argues that its omission 
leaves it to be understood that 'to 
be sons of God' defines the /ju.a-66<s 
without connoting the idea of moral 
likeness to God. But the parallel 
in Mt. guarantees the originality 
of the comparison between the 
generosity of God and the ethic 
enjoined by the Gospel. It is hard 
to understand why Lk. has abbre- 
viated the beautiful expression of 
the thought which is preserved in 
Mt. and which can hardly not 
be original : OTL TUV r/Aioi/ avrov 
di'areAAet cVt irovypovs KO.L dya$oi's, 
Kat /3pe)(i ITTI StKaiovs Kat dStKOvs. 
Perhaps, as -Loisy suggests, it was 
too simple for his taste, d^ayotcrro^s 
may be an amendment to harmonise 
with the idea introduced by dyaOo- 
Troieti/ and 8u.vttfaiv. 

36. yi vecr^eo6/<Tt/)/>tores KrA.] These 
words in Lk. introduce the subse- 
quent teaching which forbids judge- 
ment upon others; note the con- 
junction Kat at the beginning of v. 
37. The parallel in Mt. is made 
to conclude the preceding section on 
loving enemies, e'crecr^e ovv I'/teis 
reAetot, 009 6 rrar'tjp {yzojv 6 ovpa.vio'S 
reAetos etrruv, and is divided from 
the parallel to Lk. v. 37 f. (vii. i f.) 

9 6 


37 OLKTipfJioves Ka6a)<s 6 Trarifp vp&v OLKTipfJiwv e<rriv teal 

Kpuvere, Kal ov //,?; KpiQfJTe' Kal pi) KaraBtKa^ere, Kal ov p,r) 

38 KaTaBiKao-0>)T. uTroT^vere, Kal d'7ro\vdrjcreo-0e- BiBore, KOL fj,Tpoi> KO\OI> Treiriecfp.evov crecra\v/jievov 
Bdoffovaiv i<; rov Ko\irov vp.wv' u> yap 

39 fierpM fierpeLTe dvrifj.erprjO'ija'eTac EtTref 
Be Kal 7rapa/3o\r)i> at/rots Mr/rt Bvvarat Ti^)Xo9 TV(f>\bv 

by a long section (c. vi.) which is not 
represented in the Lucan sermon. 
In xix. 21 (=Mk. x. 21) Mt. has 
interpolated the words ct OeXeis 
reAetos emu. It is therefore not 
unlikely that in v. 48 also reAetos is 
due to Mt. and that the thought 
(if not the wording) of the source 
is preserved in Lk. re/Xaos is 
found in Mt. only of the evangelists. 
oiKTip/j-wv in N.T. occurs only here 
and Ja. v. II TroAi'crTrAayxvos rrii/ 
6 Kv/otos Kol oiKTipfJuav, but is not 
infrequent in LXX, esp. in Psalter. 

37-38. Mt. (vii. I f.) has no 
parallel to the words KCU p) 


v } and he passes direct from the 
first clause /*?} Kpivere 'ivu. ^u 1 )) KpiOijrf, 
followed by the statement ev w yap 


(cf. Lk. v. 38b), to the parable of 
the beam and mote (vii. 3-5 =Lk. 
vv. 41-42). This gives a clear con- 
nexion. The connexion in Lk. is 
less obvious. Whether the obscurity 
is due to Lk.'s conflation, or was 
already present in the source, is 
uncertain, pov in Mt. connotes 
the idea of a standard of judge- 
ment, but in Lk.'s version fj.(.rpov 
is a measure of capacity,, and the 
saying expands the thought of St'Sore 
Kat So$>ycreTtt6 vfilv t which is not 
present in the parallel in Mt. 
Sayings of Jesus, similar to, though 
not identical with, those in this 
section, are cited in Polyc. ii. 3 and 

i Clem. Rom. 13. In the latter ws 
Si'Sore, OI!TOIS So^rycrerat vfuv pre- 
cedes ws KpiVT } OL'Ttos Kpi#7;crecr$e; 
and thus gives an independent 
warrant for the Lucan connexion of 
ideas, /cat ov //,?) KptO^re] It is the 
judgement of God, not of fellow-men 
which is here intended. So with the 
passives in apodosis which follow. 
Cf. xi. 4 ci^es i e jfj.iv Tu<s 
v///,<3f, Kal yap avrol ac/>i'o//.ei/ iravrl 
o^ei/XovT6 iy^ti/. owcrovcrt] Imper- 
sonal plural the equivalent of a 
passive. Cf. xii. 20 TIJV i/'^X 7 / 1 ' crov 
alrovcnv curb CFOU. ets TOV KoATrov] 
The fold of the garment used as a 
pocket. Cf. Is. Ixv. 7, Ps. Ixxix. 12,, 
and Latin and Gk. parallels in Wett- 
stein ad loc. 

39. ewrev Se KOL TrapaftoXyv ai'Tots] 
A favourite Lucan phrase, not found 
in the other evv., which confirms the 
impression that the following sayings 
are not in their .original setting. 

39-40. These two sayings are not 
in the great Sermon in Mt., but 
occur in different connexions : the 
former, Mt. xv. 14, where it is inter- 
polated by Mt. into the account of 
the controversy with the Pharisees 
(|| Mark vii.), the latter, Mt. x. 24, 
25, in the charge to the Twelve. 
But the saying in Mt. x. combines 
mention of the relation of slave and. 
master with that of teacher and 
disciple, is lacking in the word and 
the idea of /caTT/^Ticr/xei'o?, and leads 
on to the conclusion: tl TUV oikoSeu"- 
Tru~i)V BeeA^e/^ovA or o< a A oral', TTOCTO) 


iv ; ov^L a^oTepot, et? ftbdvvov efjiTrecrovvTai, ; OVK ecrnv 4 

VTrep rbv Si&dcrKdhov, /eaT^/moy-tez/o? 8e Tra? earat 
d)5 6 SfcSaovcaXo? avrov. Tt e /3Xe7ret9 TO Kapcfros TO ev TCO 41 
ocf)Oa\jjLcS rov d8e\<f>ov crov, rrjv Se Bo/cbv Trjv ev TCO ISiw 
6cj)0a\fjLco ov /caravoeis; TTW? Svvacrai, \eyeiv rco a,SeX<a> crov 42 
J AeX<e, a<e? etc/3d\a) TO Kdpcfros TO eV TW 6cj)0a\fjico crov, 
avTos rrjv ev rco bc^Oakfjico crov So/cbv ov fiKeTcwv, VTro/cptrd, 
TrpcoTov rrjv SOKOV e/c ToO 6<j)6a\iJbov cro), KOI Tore 
? TO /ca/3009 TO eV TW 6cj)Oa\,fjLco rov dBe\cj)ov crov 
eic[3a\elv> Ov jap ecrruv BevSpov ica\ov TTOIOVV Kapirbv 43 

fj,aXXov rovs otKtaKovs avrov. In parallels see S.B. on Mt. vii. 3, and 
Lk. the two sayings are thrown for the thought cf . poet, ignot. apud 
into connexion with the following Plut. De curios. 515 d TI raAAoT/otoi/, 
parable of the beam and the mote. avOpayire ySacr/cai/curare, | KO.KOV 6v- 
The. former emphasises the need of Se/o/ceis, TO 8' iSiov Tra^a^AeVets ; 
clear vision in the teacher. The Hor. Sat. i. iii. 25 "cum tuapervideas 
meaning of the second is obscure. oculis mala lippus inunctis, cur in ami- 
It might continue the thought of corum vitiis tarn cernis acutum 1 " 
.the preceding v. thus: "A blind 41. tSiV) Mt. .o-(5; cf. iSiov v. 
man can be no guide, and a pupil 44 infra. 

is not a master," i.e. "there is no 42. J A8eA.</>e] Om. Mt. A self- 
master except Jesus, and only com- complacent form of address, which 
plete agreement with him can give contrasts well with viroKpiTu. infra. 
the authority of a teacher in the CU>TOS . . . ov /3X.iriv] Better 
Christian Church." So Wellh. But Greek and prob. less original than 
it is subtle. Another suggestion is Mt. /ecu I8ov r\ So/cos ev TW o<$a/\//,to 
that it continues the warning against crov. ov c. part, here only in Lk. 
blind teachers : if the teacher is 43'45- As the quality and char- 
blind, the pupil will never get beyond acter of a tree is discovered from 
him. The saying in any case will be its fruit, so a man is known by what 
proverbial in origin, and its present he produces from the treasure of his 
position is probably editorial only. heart. From the heart speech over- 
41-42 ( || Mt. vii. 3-5). This saying flows. Mt. vii. 16-18 provides at the 
in Mt. follows excellently upon corresponding place in the Sermon 
the precept not to judge. The posi- on the Mount a close parallel to vv. 
tion here is less suitable. The pre- 43-44* but v. 45 has no parallel 
ceding sayings seem to suggest an in Mt. at this point. However, 
interpretation of this saying as a in Mt. xii. 33-35 there is a doublet 
warning against the blindness of a to the saying about trees and their 
would-be guide, rather than (as in fruit, followed in this case by a close 
Mt.) as an injunction to a dis- parallel to Lk. vi. 45. The literary 
ciple to practise self-criticism. The history of the sayings is hard to 
splinter and the beam in the eye disentangle. Mt. vii. 15-27 gives an 
were proverbial. For jRabbinic expellent connexion throughout, with 



crairpov, ovBe irakiv BevBpov crairpov TTOLOVV Kaprrov Ka\ov. 

44 eicacrrov yap BevSpov etc rov ISiov tcapTrov yiv^dKerai' ov 
yap e% dicav6wv <rvX\eyov(riv crvfca, ovBe etc fldrov crra<pv- 

45 X^ rpvywcTLV. 6 dyaOos avOpwiro? eK rov dyaQov Q^crav- 
pov rfjs KapSias irpofyepei TO dyaOov, Kal 6 Trovrjpbs CK rov 
irovrjpov TTpofyepei TO 'jrovrjpov etc yap Trepiera-ev/Jsaros 

46 KapSias \a\ei rb crToyu/a avrov. Tt Be p,e KaKeire 

the importance of ' doing ' as the 
dominant note. The rotten trees 
answer to false prophets the wolves 
in sheep's clothing who are to be 
known from their fruits. These 
lead on by an easy transition to 
the saying " Not every one that 
saith unto me, Lord, Lord," etc., 
and finally to the concluding parables. 
The connexion in Lk. is less satis- 
factory. The fruit, good and bad, 
answers to the overflowing of the 
heart's treasure in speech. This 
differs from the thought in Mt. vii. 
15 f. and also from the thought of 
the foil. v. 46 ( || Mt. vii. 21), which 
rebukes insincere speech. But the 
better connexion is not necessarily the 
more primitive, and it seems probable 
that Matthew has been revising 
his sources; thus the reference to 
false prophets (vii. 15) is probably 
editorial. If Lk. here reproduces 
the source (so Loisy, Wellh.), Mt. 
may have deliberately transposed 
and expanded the original of Lk. 
vi. 45, in order to improve the con- 
nexion in this section of the Sermon. 
Lagrange thinks that Mt. preserves 
the original and that Lk. has 

In Mt. vii. 1 6- 1 8 the parallels to 
vv. 43 and 44 come in inverse order 
and with other differences, ov yap 
am . . . TTQIOVV . . . oi'Se 
. . ., Mt. ov 8vvarai . . . e 

The parallel in Mt. xii. 33!) lacks 
KU(TTOV and iSiov, cf. v. 41. 



/3a.Tov <TTa.<j)V\r)v~\ Mt. O.TTO a- 


. . . 

The variation is probably due to 
editing by Lk. The idea of looking 
for fruit on rpifioXoi 'thistles' seemed 
too remote. Lk. also adds rpvywtri, 
the technical word for gathering in 
the vintage. 

45. 7r/>o(j!>e/)ei] Mt. xii. 35 e'/c- 

Trottov TO 

43. TTOIOVV KapTTov] Cf. iii. 8 n. 

44. Kao~TOvyap . . 

K yap Trepicrcrcv/zaros 
In Mt. xii. 34 the general statement 
precedes the particular statements. 
avrov not in Mt. 

46. Mt. vii. 21 OTJ Tras o Aeycui/ 
/Jbot Kiyne Kiyne etVeAevcrerat cts 
yv /3acrtAetai/ TOJV oi'pavcui/, aAA,' 
A^/xa TO{> Trarpos /zov 
ev TOIS ovpavois. It is hard to 
decide whether Mt. has expanded 
(Wellh., Bultmann) or Lk. has 
abbreviated. Harnack questions 
whether Mt. vii. 21 and Lk. vi. 
46 are really derived from Q. But 
that a corresponding saying was 
present in the common source is 
plainly indicated by the position of 
the saying in each gospel. Probably 
Lk. is nearer to the source. In 
Clem. Horn. viii. 7 a narrative is 
constructed for the saying: 6 'I^crovs 
?7//,ojj/ TT/aos TWO. TrvK.v6re.pov Kvpiov 
avrov Xtyovra, /xr^Sei/ Se TTOLOVVTU. 
&v auros 7r/3ocr6Taei/, e'(/jvy rt pe 
Aeyets' Kvpiz Kitpce, /cat ov iroiels u< 
Aeycu ; ov yap w^>eA(ret nva TO 


Kvpie, KOI ov iroielTe a \e<ya) ; Tra<$ o ep^o//,ez>o? -rrpos //.e KOL 47 
aKovwv /MOV rwv \6<ycov /cal TTOIWV avrovs, vTroSei^ca v/juv rivu 
e<nlv OyU-oto?' o//.oto? eGTLV avd pwirw ol/coSo/ubovvTi, ol/cLav 05 48 
KOI efidOvvev /cal eOrjicev Oefiekiov eVt TTJV Trerpav' 
Se fyevofjLevrjs Trpocrep^ev o Trorayw-o? TTJ olicia 
teal OVK ^cr^ycrev aaXevcrat, avr'rjv Bia TO KdXws OLKO- 
avrrjv. 6 Se aKOvcras KOI fj,r) Troitfaas 6'yuoto? ecmv 49 

48 5ia TO /caXcos ouco5o/7<r0cu avrt^v ^BLWEJ 33 157 syr.hl-mg aegg : 
yap eiri TT]v irerpav ACD mult al latt syrr(vg.hl) arm S~ ex Matt vii. 25 : om 700 syr.siu 

Xeyeiv aAAa TO Troielv. " My Lord, 
my Lord," "Mari, Mari," was a 
common form of respectful address. 
Cf. b. Makkoth -2^0-1^ (Gold- 
schmidt, vii. pp. 606 f.), " Who is 
he who honours them that fear the 
Lord (Ps. xv. 4)? That is King 
Josaphat, king of Judah, who when 
he saw a pupil of the scribes rose 
from his throne and embraced him, 
and kissed him and addressed him 
My Father, my Father, my Master, 
my Master (Rabbi, Rabbi), my Lord, 
my Lord (Mari, Mari)." Cf. Fiebig, Bergpredigt, p. 147. To the 
two verses (22, 23) which follow in 
Mt. vii. there is a partial parallel in 
Lk. xiii. 25 f., q.v. Bultmann (p. 70) 
thinks that Mt. here represents the 
source and that Lk. has transposed 
the saying, quoting 2 Clem. iv. 5 
for the connexion of ideas in Mt. 
It is perhaps more likely that Mt. 
has interpolated. 

47-49. The Lucan version of the 
concluding parables differs from the 
Matthaean (vii. 24-27) both in style 
and content. In style the rhythmical 
parallelism of the Matthaean version 
disappears, mainly owing to the 
insertion uTroSet^w . . . o/xotos in v. 
47 (cf. for this xii. 5), the gen. 
absbl. and the constr. of prep. c. 
infin. in v. 48, the omission of 
objects to a/couo-as and /J.r t 
in v. 49, and the addition of 

In content Lk. founds 
the moral upon a point which is not 
found in Mt. By the addition of os 
tTKa\l/v . . . 6e/ueXiov, v. 48, the 
substitution of Sta TO KaXtos OI'KO- 
SofjbijcrOai avrrjv for T$eyu,eAtu>To 
yap ITTL rrjv Trerpav, and the addition 
of xwpts Oep.eX.iov, he makes the main 
point of contrast between the two 
builders that the one built upon a 
foundation and that the other did 
not. A difference in climatic and 
geographic conditions is also implied. 
In Mt. the houses are tested by a 
great storm which creates an over- 
flowing torrent. The picture answers 
to conditions in Palestine. Lk. on 
the other hand says nothing of wind 
and rain and refers only to a river 
rising in flood. Mt. seems to be the 
more original, for it is hard to see 
why he should have omitted refer- 
ence to digging a foundation had 
he found it in his source, while the 
point is an ' improvement ' which 
might well occur to an editor. A 
striking parallel to these comparisons 
is quoted from Aboth Rabbi Nathan 
xxiv. : "Elisha b. Abuya (c. A.D. 120 
the apostate Rabbi) said, ' A man 
who does good works and studies 
diligently in the Law, what is he 
like ? He is like a man who builds 
first with great stones and then 
lays upon them his unbaked bricks ; 
and when floods come and wash 



fj Trpoa-epri^ev o irora^o^, KOI ev6v<$ <rvvG7r6(rev, KOL e^evero 


round the walls, they cannot move 
them. But to whom is he like who 
studies in the Law, but has little 
merit ? He is like a man who lays 
a foundation with unbaked bricks.' " 
Burkitt has suggested that R. 
Nathan may have got the com- 


parison of the two houses and their 
builders from the Gospel, probably 
second-hand, and may have ascribed 
it to Elisha the heretic to avoid 
offence, J.Th.S. xv. p. 618; cf. 
Abrahams, Studies, i. p. 92 ; Fiebig, 
Gleichnisreden Jesu, pp. 81-82. 


The miraculous healing of the centurion's servant is found also in Mt. 
(viii. 5 f.), and in almost the same position, viz. after the conclusion of the 
great Sermon. (In Mt. the healing of the leper, from Mk. i. 40 f., has been 
placed immediately after the Sermon, and before the healing of the centurion's 
servant.) It may be presumed to have been taken from Q. In each Gospel, 
and therefore in Q, the story leads up to the saying of Jesus, " Not in Israel 
have I found so great faith," and the centurion stands as a type of a believing 
Gentile. Mt. has emphasised this aspect of the story by interpolating 
into the narrative the saying " Many shall come from the east and the 
west," etc., which Lk. gives later in another connexion (xiii. 28 f.). The 
chief difference between Mt. and Lk. is that in Mt. the centurion him- 
self comes to Jesus with his petition, whereas in Lk. he approaches him 
through two successive embassies first, elders of the Jews, and secondly, 
friends. This seems artificial, and there can be no doubt that Mt. gives 
the story in a more original form. The words of the centurion (6b-8) are in 
place when the centurion speaks himself ; they are not in place when repeated 
by his friends, who, as Wellh. says, appear to have learnt the centurion's words 
by heart. It seems possible that the symbolic character of the centurion, 
as typifying Gentile believers, has encouraged the expansion of the story as 
given in Lk. Like later Gentile believers, the centurion never meets Jesus 
in the flesh, but communicates with him and receives his benefits through 
intermediaries. We may compare the Greeks in Jo. xii. .20, who, wishing to 
see Jesus, approach Philip. Their request, when reported to Jesus, leads up to 
the saying, " I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to myself," but the evangelist 
seems to intend us to understand that they did not see Jesus in the flesh. 

In Mt. Jesus appears to exhibit at first some reluctance to enter the 


house of a Gentile (if, that is, with Wellh. and others we read viii. 7 as a 
question) and only yields to the centurion's insistent faith. This is in line 
with the story of the healing of the Syrophenician woman's daughter (Mk. vii. 
24 f.) a narrative which has the further point in common with this miracle 
that the healing is performed from a distance. This motif of an initial 
reluctance on the part of Jesus is not present in Lk. The centurion forbears 
to come himself out of personal humility, and is only anxious to save Jesus 
the trouble of a journey to his house. The account of the healing of Jairus's 
daughter has perhaps influenced Luke's story at this point (cf. v. 6 Kvpte, 
ii cr/cuAAou with Mk. v. 35 TI ert crKuAAeis TOV SiScur/caAoi';). 

r) 7r\ijpa)<rev iravra ra pijfJLara avrov et9 ra? d/coa? I 
TOV \aov, elvrfkOev et? Ka<f>apvaovfjt,. 

'Ei/caTOVTap^ov Be TWOS Bov\o<? /ca/eco? fycov ^fjie\\ev 2 
Tekevrav, o? rjv avTw evTLfjios. d/covaas Be nrepl TOV 'I^croO 3 
diTe<TTeL\ev Trpos avTov irpecrfivTepovs TWV 'lovBaicov, epco- 
TWV avTov OTTOJ? e\6<av Siaacioa-rj TOV &ov~\.ov avTov. ol Be 4 

vrpo? TOV Irfcrovv 7rapeKa\ovi> avTov CTTTOU- 
XeyovTes OTI djfios eaTLV c5 Trape^r) TOVTO, dyaTra 5 
jap TO e6vo<$ rjfjLWV Kal Trjv avvaywryrjv CLVTOS cJ/coSoytt^crez/ 
ijfjLiv. o Be ITJCTOVS eiropeveTO avv avTois. ijBij Be avTov 6 
ov jjiCLKpav d'ire'xovTos tnro TV)? ot/cta? eTrefityev <j)i\ov<? 6 
\eycov avTM Kvpie, /i?; CTKV\\OV, ov yap 

ABC al : eirei de fc$L e f limit al 5" : KO.L eyevero ore D b l\" 2 1 <[ 

1. eVeiS?/] v.l. eVet'. Neither word 4. utos cVrti/ <5 Tra^e^;/] Cf. Latin 
is used elsewhere in the N.T. in dignus qui c. subj., and see Blass, 
a temporal sense. The reading of 65. 8. 

D is probably assimilated to Mt. 5. r-tjv a-vva-yioy^v cu'ros co/co<$o- 

vn 'i- 28. /x/yo-ei/] A similar case of a pagan 

2. SouAo?] Mt. TTCUS, and this official assisting in the building of a 
was probably the word used in the Jewish place of prayer seems to bo 
source, since it is also found in Lk. attested by an Egyptian inscr. of 
v. 7. The word, like the English the second cent. B.C. (Dittenberger, 
' boy,' is ambiguous, and might O.G.I. S. 96), 'Y7re/> /SucrtAe'tos IlroAe- 
mean 'servant' or 'son.' Lk. in- fj.aiov Kal /^acriAuro-?;? KAeo7raT/)us 
tcrprets in the former sense, and IlroAe/zutos 'ETriKvBov o eVio-Tar?ys 
Jo. apparently in the latter. TWI/ (/niAa/a-noi/ Kal ol li> 

ly/xeAAei/ reAein-cu'] So in Jo. iv. 'locfiuioi 

47 ^eAAei' yap U7ro^i/?ycr/oeti'. v 


7 licavos elfjii 'iva VTTO Trjv (Trejrjv fAov aVeX#?7?' Bib ovBe 
e/jbavTov rf^icocra irpb^ ere e\de2v' d\\a etVe Xcxyw, teal 

8 la6r)Tu> o vrat9 i^ov' Kal jap eya) avOpwTros eip,u VTTO e'ou- 
cr Lav raa-a-ofMevos, e^a>v VTT e/^avrbv wrpaTiMTas, Kal \eyco 

TLopevOyri, Kal Tropeverai, Kal #XXo> "E^ou, Kal 
i, Kal TOJ Bov\(p fiov TIoLtjaroi' TOUTO, Kal Troiei. 

9 aKovcras Be ravra o ^lijcrovf edavftacrev avrov, Kal crrpa- 
<pel$ Tc3 aKoXovdovvTi avrw o^Xm elirev Ae^at vfuv, ovSe 

IO ev TW 'larparjX ro<ravTiji> iricmv evpov. Kal v 
e/9 TOV OLKQV oi 7rejjL(f)devTe<i evpov rov SovKov v 

7 Sio ouSe . . . e\0eii> om D a b c e ff 2 1. syr.siii 
sah : ladya-eTat codcl omn rell lit vid 5" ; fortasse ex Matt viii. 8 

BL boh (codd) 

7. Sto ovSe . . . TT/JUS ere l 
These words are necessarily absent 
from Mt., where the centurion pre- 
sents his own request. The man's 
personal humility gives the reason 
why he not only desires to prevent 
the entry of Jesus into his house, 
but has also chosen to approach 
Jesus through the elders and his 
friends. The omission of the words 
in D and MSS. of Old Latin may 
well be due to the influence of Mt. 

Wellh. thinks that the sentence is 
an interpretative gloss. But in the 
Lucan form of the narrative they 
directly help the story, and are 
probably as old as the other modi- 
fications in Lk. 

8. The thought seems to be that 
as he, the centurion, where he is in 
power, has but to speak the word to 
be obeyed, so Jesus in exerting the 
power committed to him needs but 
to speak and the deed is done. 

THE WIDOW'S SON AT NAIN (vii. 11-17) 

Like Elijah and Elisha, the new Prophet raises from death the only son 
of a widow. The narrative is peculiar to Lk. and may be assigned to the 
series of narratives derived from Lk.'s special source. Note especially the 
use of 6 KI'/DIOS in v. 13, and the echoes of the LXX in vv. 15 and 17. As 
compared with the Marcan story of the raising of Jairus's daughter, the miracle 
is enhanced by the circumstance that the corpse is actually on the way to 
burial. We may compare the story again with the raising of Lazarus, where 
the body has been already four days in the tomb when life is restored. 

The incident is described with picturesque detail and with a conscious 
delight in the story-teller's art. Jesus, attended by his disciples and a large 
multitude, approaches the city at the very moment that the funeral pro- 
cession issues forth. The sorrowing widow, the sympathetic townsfolk, 
Jesus moved with compassion, the bearers, the young man, are all vividly 


portrayed. The miracle proceeds entirely from the compassion of Jesus. 
There is no mention of faith or place for its operation. 

The detail finds close parallel in a miracle ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana. 
Philostratus, Vita iv. 45 Kopt) ei/ cupp, ydpov rtOvdvaL eSoKei /cat 6 
WfjL<l>io<s ?yKoAou$ei ry K\ivy fiou>v OTrocra ITT' are Act, vvw\o<j)VpeTO 
Se Kai 7} 'Peu/oy . . . Traparv^v ovv 6 'A7roAA(ovtos T( 7ra0et, KuTu$ecr$e, 
ec/ir/, T>)i' /cAiVr/v lya) ya/> v/xas rwv evrt rrj Kop-g SaKpvwv Travo~<o . . . 01 

\O\ \\V" \ ' 3 ' ' ' c C>' >C> X '\\' rt 

[jitv or) TroAAoi ujoim> Aoyoy ayo/aencretv ai'roi/ . . ., o o ovoet' uAA 17 
Trpova.^u.jJ.evos ai'r>ys Kat n ac/)ai/ws eVctTrwi/ (jL<pv7rvLcre Trjv Kopyv TOV 
SOKOVVTOS 6ava.Tov, KO.I <l)(avi')V 9' ?} TTUIS ac^iyKei/ /crA. 

Baur (Apollonius v. Tyana u. Christus) held that the miracle in Philo- 

\ J. t/ / 

stratus was a conscious imitation of the Gospel miracle. But this is 
an unnecessary assumption. (Cf. Weinreich, Antike W under erztihlungen, 
Excursus A.) The motif of the restoration to life of a person about to be 
buried or cremated is found in other pagan stories. Cf. Apuleius, Florida 19 
(a miracle of Asclepiades), and for a similar incident in the romance of 
lamblichus see E. Rohde, Griech. Roman 2 , p. 287 n. 2. 

The insertion of the miracle at this point in the Gospel prepares the 
way for the reply of Jesus to the messengers of John which follows. See 

VV. l8, 22. 

Kat eyevero ev TM e^?)? eTropevOr) et? TTO\IV KO\.OV- I I 
Nan>, KOI crvveiropevovTO avru> ol /JLadijTal avrov 

i 0^X09 TroXv?. ft>? Be ijtyyicrev rf) irv\r) r^9 7roA,eci)9, 1 2 
teal ISov ee/co/ueTO reOvrficw^ fjbovoyevrjs vio? Trj 
avrov, Kai avrrj r]v ftrfpa, /cat 0^X09 T^9 7roXe&)9 
r]V aw avrfj. /cal ISaiv avrrjv o Kvpios ecrTrKay-^yiadri eV 1 3 

n ev TW e??s ABL9 69 etc 700 al a b vg sail syr.sin : ,om e^s i etc : ev TT? 
XCDW perm al c e t' boh syrr (vg.hl) arm S~ 13 /cu/atos] ITJCTOUS D syr.sin 

the east gate of Nain on the road 
which leads to Capernaum. 

12. ws 5e ?yyyrj>] Lucan only in 
N.T., cf. xix. 41. 

tgcKO[jiicTo\ Here only in Greek 
Bible. The word is used of carrying 
out a corpse in Polybius, Plut., etc. 

13. o /cr/Hos] This is the first 
occurrence of the usage, frequent 
in Lk., which describes Jesus as o 

II. ei/ T<o e'//s] sc. 
Lucan only in N.T. 

Nat i/] The modern Nein. Not 
mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. 
It is situated between Endor and 
Shunem the latter the spot where 
Elisha raised the widow's son and 
therefore some considerable distance 
S.W. of Capernaum. It is said that 
rock-graves are to be found before 


14 avry KOL elirev avrf} M^ tcXale. KOI irpoa-ekOwv 

rijs cropov, ol Se ftaa-rd^ovTes ea-rrja-av, KOL elirev 
1 5 crol "\,e<ya>, e^/epO^n. /cat avKd9i(T6V o vefcpb? KOI rf 
1 6 ~Ka\elv, /cat eftcoKev avrbv rfj fjjrjrpl avrov: "E\a@ev Be <j)6(3os 
KOI eBo^a^ov rbv Oeov Xeyovres ort HpocfriJT'rjs 
ev rjfjulv, /cat on 'ETreoveevJraTO o 0eo9 TOV \aov 
17 avrov. KOI e%rj\6ev o Xoryo? ovro? ev o\r) rf) lovSaua irepl 
avrov Kal Trda-y rfj 

14 veaviaKe] iter veavieKe D a if 2 Diat cf. viii. 54 infra 

Kiy)6os in narrative. The primitive 
confession that (the exalted) Jesus is 
Kvpw<s has reacted upon the form of 
narratives describing his life on 
earth. The usage is not found in 
Mk. or in Mt., and in Lk. it is 
almost entirely confined to passages 
peculiar to the evangelist or to in- 
troductions which he has furnished 
to other material. See vii. 19, x. i, 
39, 41, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 
5, xviii. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61, 
xxiv. 3. The MSS. frequently 
give variants as D syr.sin here, but 
these may in general be safely 
assigned to the influence of the more 
usual usage of the Gospels. The 
usage is frequent in the Gospel of 
Peter. [Mk.] xvi. 19 is scarcely a 
parallel. It may be inferred from 
the circumstance that the usage is 
never found where Lk. is directly 
reproducing his Marcan source, that it 
was not originated by the evangelist, 
but that it was found by him already 
existing in his special source. 

14. rr/s o-opov] ' The bier ' or ' the 
coffin.' Here only in N.T. But cf. 

Gen. 1. 26 of the coffin in which the 
body of Joseph was laid in Egypt. 
Wellh., holding that cro/oos must mean 
' coffin,' sees here a -reflection of Greek 
custom, since coffins were not in 
common use among the Jews; cf. 
Jos. Ant. xvii. 197; Vita 323. But 
instances of the word cropo<s from 
papyri in M.M. seem to shew clearly 
that cropo? may be used for a bier, 
e.g. Pap. Lond. cxxi. 236 (third cent. 
A.D.) 6 e?rt (T(j)pii) KaTa/<et)u,vos. 

15. cLveKaOia-sv] In Greek Bible 
only here and Ac. ix. 40. 

KO.I e'Sco/cej/ avrov TTJ p^rpi avrov] 
= 3 Regn. xvii. 23 (of Elijah) ad 
literam. Cf. also 4 Regn. iv. 36. 

1 6. eXa/3ev 8e co/3os Trai'ras] 
Lucan. Cf. i. 65, v. 9, 26. 

Trpocj^Tjys /*e'yas] Like Elijah and 
Elisha of old. And cf. v. 39 infra, 
xxiv. 19. 

7rari<e\l/a.To ;<T/L] Frequent in 
LXX of a divine visitation : Gen. 
xxi. i, 1. 24 f . ; Ruth i. 6; cf. supra 
i. 68, 78 ; Ac. xv. 14. 

17. 1 1/ o/Y?7 ry 'lovftaLa. KT/\.] i.e. 
in the whole of Palestine and beyond. 

JESUS AND JOHN (vii. 18-35) 

A collection of sayings relating to John the Baptist, which, as the parallel 
in Mt. xi. proves, goes back essentially in its present form to Q, and therefore 
in all probability to the primitive Palestinian community. The collection 
of sayings gives answers to two questions : " What did John think of Jesus ? " 


and " What did Jesus think of John ? " (J. Weiss). There are various 
indications that the disciples of John retained for some time their identity 
as a separate group (Mk. ii. 18 ; Lk. xi. I ; Acts xix. i f.), and it was therefore 
inevitable that the relations of the two prophets to each other should be a 
matter of lively interest. It is impossible to determine with precision how far 
the existing texts reproduce actual spoken words of Jesus and to what extent 
they have been shaped by the reflections of the early community. Wellhausen 
is probably right in detecting a retrospective attitude in the paragraph as 
a whole. This is particularly noticeable in the concluding verses (33-35). 
Personal impressions of Jesus and of John are still fresh, but the compilers 
look back upon what each has been and has done. 

It is only in Matthew and John that the Baptist is represented as recognising 
the character and the mission of Jesus from the beginning. These representa- 
tions in all probability give theory in dramatic form. If the Matthaean and 
the Johannine conception is excluded here, we are given a picture of the 
Baptist receiving news of the works of Jesus and beginning to wonder whether 
he is perhaps that ' coming one ' of whom he had spoken. The incident as 
here recorded (cf. note on v. 18) represents the beginning of faith, not the 
beginning of doubt. This, too, may be theory in dramatic form (cf. v. 19 n.). 

Jesus associates John's message with his own. They have both appealed 
to and both been rejected by their generation. The wisdom of God spoke 
by them both. John is the greatest of men : a prophet and more than a 
prophet ; the messenger of whom Malachi foretold that he would prepare the 
way for the coming of the Messiah. At the same time John belongs to the old 
order, not to the new. " He that is least in the kingdom of God is greater 
than he." There is probably later reflection in some of these sayings (cf. 
vv. 27, 28 nn.). But the powerful and ironical appeal of vv. 24, 25, "What 
went ye out into the wilderness to see ? " and the parable of the children in 
the market-place (vv. 31-32) read like authentic reminiscence of the spoken 

Kat dTrrfyyeihav \wdvei ol /JbaO^ral avrov irepl nrdvTOiv 1 8 
TOVTOJV. KOL r Trpoa-Kd\<rdpevos Svo Tivas TWV 

1 8. Trept TTiivruv Tovroiv} i.e. the The last words probably imply that 

preaching and the miracles which John, who had believed Jesus to bo 

have been recorded since the last the Messiah (cf. Mt. iii. 14, 15). is 

mention of John at the baptism of now led to doubt his earlier belief. 

Jesus, c. iii. Mt. a/coi'cras ev Tip This is not suggested in Lk. 
TU e'pya rov ^purrov. KOL Trpo<rK. Si'o TIVUS Ttov 


el 6 

19 avrov 6 Ifway?;? eirep/fyev Trpo? TOV Kvpiov \eya)v S 

20 ep^o/Aevos 17 erepov irpoa^oKoyp.ev ; irapa^evofJievoL Be 
CLVTOV 01 avSpes znrav 'Icodwr]? 6 /^aTr-ncrr?)? a r jreaTeL\ev 
r}fj,as Trpo? o~e \e<ya)v Su et 6 ep^ofjievos 77 a\\ov nrpocr- 

2 1 SoKwfjiev ; ev e/ceivrj TTJ copa eOepdirevo'ev Tro\\ov<$ a?ro 
voo~d)v Kal /Jiaariycov teal Trvev/bLaTajv Trovrjpcov, KOI TV(j)\oi<; 

22 7roXXot9 e^apicraro /3\e7reiv, Kal diroKpiOel^ elirev avrolff 
. HopevOevres aTrayyefaaTe 'Iwdvet, a e'tBere teal 

TY<JjAoi ANABAenoyciN, %ca\ol Trepnrarovcriv, XeTrpol 
real tcci)(f)ol d/covova-tv, vetcpol eyeipovrai,, njcaxoi ey 

23 ical fjiaKapios ecmv o? eav jj,r) o-Kava\La0f) ev efJLoi. 

24 'ATreXOovTcov Se rwv dyyeXcov '\codvov rjp^aro Xe^etz/ 

The two disciples are not mentioned 
in Mt. For the wording cf. Ac. 

xxiii. 23 KGU Trpotr/ctteo-tt/jicvos TIVU.S 
8vo TO) v fKarovTap^wv. 

7T/90S TUV Krpiov] Cf.supm, v. 13 n. 
'lyirovv KA syr.sin lat.vt (codd.)- 

19. o epx6fj.evos] i.e. the mightier 
one who was to come after him, 
iii. 1 6. Yet the words and deeds 
of Jesus which his disciples would 
relate are not suggestive of the 
awful figure whose advent John had 

21. This verse (not in Mt.) is 
very awkwardly interpolated by Lk. 
in order that full meaning may be 
given to a et'Sere /cat 7yKoi;crare in 
the verse following. 

22. The messengers are to tell 
John of the miracles which fulfil the 
Messianic prophecies. The preced- 
ing verse makes it clear that Lk. 
understands ' the blind receive their 
sight,' etc., literally. The same 
is the case in Mt., for he has 
placed Marcan miracles before this 
incident to answer to the words of 
the message. But perhaps this was 
not intended in Q. The words are 
derived from Is. Ixi. i combined 
with xxxv. 5 f. where they are 

figurative expressions for the be- 
stowal of new life. Two of the 
clauses the cleansing of the lepers 
and the raising of the dead are not 
founded upon the Isaianic prophecies. 
In the Mandaean Book Ginza (Right, 
i. 201, p. 30, 3 f. = ii. i. 136, p. 48, 
7 f., ed. Lidzbarski) the same series 
of miracles (including those in the 
Gospels not derived from Isaiah) are 
found associated with the coming 
of the heavenly being Enos-Uthra. 
Reitzenstein (Das mandaische Buck 
des Plerrn der Grosse und die Evan- 
gelieniiberlieferung, pp. 23 f.) has con- 
jectured that Q is here dependent 
upon the Mandaean text and that 
the words of Jesus are to be ex- 
plained against a background of 
beliefs preserved in the Mandaean 
texts. This is a bold conjecture, 
whatever view be adopted as to the 
date and provenance of the Mandaean 

23. This verse seems more ap- 
propriate if we suppose that John 
has sent to Jesus in the spirit of 
enquiry which leans to faith, than if 
we think of his message as the out- 
come of a doubt which has eclipsed 


roi>9 o^Xou? irepl 'Icodvov Tt e|V;X#aTe et? rr]v epyfjiov 
OedcracrOai', KaKapov VTTO dvepov crakevofjuevov ; aXXa ri 25 
e%rj\6aT6 IBeiv ; avdpwirov ev //.aXa/cot? iyLtartot? rj^iea-pevov ; 
IBov ot ev IfAaTHrfAo) evSogw KOI rpv(j)fj VTrdp^ovres ev rot? 
/foo-fcXeiot? elaiv. aXXa ri e^i]\6are ISeiv ; Trpo^rfjv ; vai, 26 
Xeytw vfuv, Kal Trepicrarorepov 7rpo<p^rov. OTO? e&Tiv irepi ov 27 


'lAoy d!TTOCTeAAoo TON &rreAoN MOY rrpd Trpoctbrroy coy, 
ACKeY^cei THIN O'AO'N coy GMnpocGeN coy. 

V/MV, [jbeL^wv ev ryevvriTols yvvaiKwv ^Icodvov ouSel? 28 
ecrnv o Be /MKporepos ev rjj /3acrtXeta TOV deov 

28 yvvcwcuv] add irpo^rf]^ AD mult al f q vg syrr arm Clem Ambr 5" : 0111 J^BLW 
al 1-131 565 157 a b c e aegg syr.hl-mg pal aeth Or 

24-25. John is described in each 
case by contrasts. He was no shak- 
ing reed, and no soft courtier. The 
eulogy on John appears to have no 
close connexion in thought with 
the incident which has preceded 

24. ri J '//A0uT /crA.] "What went 
ye out into the wilderness to see ? 
a reed . . . ? " Or we may place the 
question mark after epri/j.ov and 
translate ri ' why,' and similarly 
with the questions which follow. 
The latter translation is necessary 
in Mt. where, in the parallel to 
v. 26 infra, the words ISetv and 
n-poffjr'jTrjv occur in reverse order, and 
must be constructed together. 

25. ol iv ifj.aTi(r/JUt) , . . virdp- 
Xoyres] Mt. ol ra /zaAa/ca (/ 

which is plainly more original, 
Tta-^os] Of. ix. 29; Ac. xx. 33. 
/cat rpvcfifj] In N.T. only here and 
2 Pet. ii. 13. i'7ra/j^oj/res] Very 
freq. in Lk. in the sense of ' being.' 
Never in Mt., Mk. or Jo. 

27. John is more than a prophet 
because he is the messenger who is 
to herald the arrival of the Messiah. 
The text of Mai. iii. i is again applied 

to John in Mk. i. 2, where it is 
found with the same variations from, 
the LXX as here ('^fiTrpocrOei' crov om. 
Mk.). The Christian interpretation 
of the text depends on reading cron 
for fJiov after irpo Trpoo-wirov. In 
Malachi God sends the messenger, 
and the messenger prepares the way 
for God. 

28. <n''5ets e'er] A Lucan improve- 
ment of the Semitic form of speech 
preserved in Mt. ov/< ey>yye/>Tou. 

o 8e fj.LKpurepo<s] Comparative form 
with force of superlative, as often. 
Cf. Blass, ii. 3. 

The function of John has been to 
prepare for a new order. He who is 
least in the new order is greater than 
he. In Mt. this saying is followed 
by a version obscurer and prob- 
ably more original of the saying 
which Lk. gives below, xvi. 16, q.v. 
The position of John in relation to 
the kingdom of God is hero viewed 
from the standpoint of the historical 
order. iv ry /SVtriAem TOV Otov 
virtually means ' within the society 
of the believers.' It seems very 
doubtful whether this usage would 
have been adopted by Jesus. It 


29 ea-TLV. Kal Tra? 6 Xao<? aicovcras KOI ol reXwvai e 

30 rbv deov, fiaTmcrOevTes TO fidrrTtafJia 'Iwdirov 01 $e 
aalot, Kal ol vo/uiiKol Ti]V /SovXijv rov Oeov 


3 1 eavrovs, prj aTTTicrevTes VTT avrov 

TOl/9 avOpCOTTOVS T?)? ^eVGCL<i TaVT7/9, 

32 OfjLOLoi elaiv TratoYot? 7045 eV tvyopa 
d\\r)XoLS, a Xeyei 

HvXi](rafjLv vpfiv Kal OUK 

v. T/z 

z/t ovv 

KOL TlVl QiaV O/JiOLOl ; 

Ka Trpocr- 


Kal OVK 



34 nrivwv olvov, Kal \eyere kai^oviov e 


e\i')\v6ev o uto? 
TOT) dv6p<t)7rov ecrQwv Kal TTIVWV, KOI \eyere 'ISou avO p 

would be a clear perversion of the 
spirit of this passage as a whole to 
infer that Jesus thought that the 
Baptist would be excluded from the 
company of the patriarchs (cf. xiii. 
28 infra) in the future kingdom. 

29-30. These verses do not occur 
in the parallel in Mt. xi., though 
they find a counterpart in Mt. xxi. 
31, 32, a saying of Jesus which 
follows the parable of the two sons. 
It is not at all clear here whether 
these verses are intended to be read 
as a historical statement introduced 
by the narrator : " When all the 
people and the publicans heard these 
words of Jesus, they justified God, 
while the Pharisees and lawyers who 
had not been baptized with John's 
baptism rejected the counsel of 
God." This seems to be the most 
satisfactory interpretation of the 
present text, although the return 
to direct speech in v. 31 without 
further introduction is awkward. 
The alternative is to make this verse 
one of the sayings of Jesus in 
which, as in Mt. xxi. 31, 32, Jesus 
contrasts the response of the outcast 
with the response of the Pharisees 
and lawyers. But this makes a very 

bald Zogrton in this connexion, and 
the opening words Tras 6 Aaus aKovaas 
are very strongly against it. The 
passage was perhaps introduced 
here to provide an interpretation by 
anticipation of v. 35 infra. The 
people and the publicans are ' the 
children of wisdom,' who justify 
God by heeding each of the two 
messengers whom God has sent. In 
Mt. xxi. 32 we read ot Se reAwi/at /cat 
at Tropvai eTrivrtixrav U.VTM. 

30. vofiLKoi- for ypuii.fJia.Teis, as 
often in Luke, cf. x. 25 n. 

eis eavroi's] The fdovXi'/ of God 
could not be itself frustrated. If 
some rejected it, others accepted it. 
So far as concerned themselves (ets 
euvroi's) the Pharisees and lawyers 
rejected it. 

31-32. The comparison is not ex- 
actly expressed. It is John and Jesus 

not this generation who are the 
counterparts to the children who invite 
their fellows to joy or to mourning 

in each case without success. 
33-34. I\.'i'i\v0ev . . . eA.7yA.i>$ei/] 

iyA.#ei/ . . . iy/V^ei' Mt. aprov t olvov 
not in Mt., and probably added to 
Q by Lk. The omission of the 
words here by D syr.vt lat.vt 



voirorT]^, 0/Xo9 rekwvwv KOI a^ap'rwKwv. KOI 3 5 
i) ao<f>ia airo TTUVTWV TWV TZKVWV avrfjs. 
35 iravruv oni D I etc al sj'r.vt arm 

(codd.) is probably due to the clined to insert ?ras Trui/res wherever 

influence of Mt. possible. Mt. (in the best texts) 

35. The wisdom of God is justified gives the variant version e/jywi/ for 

by her own children, because they TCKJ/COI'. It has never been satis- 

listen to God's messengers. The factorily explained and is perhaps 

interpretation is easier if with D etc. a very early corruption or mistake 

we omit TTUI'TWV. But Lk. is in- (Wellh., Harnack). 


There follows a scene which illustrates the character of the mission of 
Jesus as sketched in the preceding section. Jesus sits at meat in a Pharisee's 
house. A sinful woman lavishes affection upon him and receives from him 
a gracious pardon, whereas the host, who has already neglected his guest, 
disapproves the gentleness of Jesus to the erring woman. 

This narrative is regarded by Luke as a variant to the story of the anointing 
in Mk. xiv. 3 f., for he has omitted the latter narrative from his version of the 
Passion (c. xxii.). Luke may draw upon some other source which contained 
a parallel to the Marcan anointing, or, less probably, he may himself have 
recast and filled in the Marcan story. 

A further problem is presented by the relation of this narrative to the 
narrative of the anointing of Jesus by Mary, the sister of Lazarus, Jo. xii. i f . 
John depends mainly on Mark, and, like Mark, he places the anointing in 
relation to the approaching Passion (of. John xii. 7 with Mk. xiv. 8), although, 
unlike Mark, he dates the incident before the triumphal entr} 7 . But there are 
also points of contact between the Johannine version and this Lucan narrative, 
see v. 38 n. These are probably to be explained by dependence of John 
upon Luke. 

The scene in Luke, like many of the scenes peculiar to this evangelist, is 
at once impressive in its total effect, and in detail lacking in verisimilitude. 
The behaviour of the Pharisee who first invites Jesus to his table and then, 
for some reason unexplained, neglects the ordinary duties of hospitality is 
unconvincing. And the rebuke of Jesus to his host, if treated realistically, 
is equally unsatisfactory. The real intention of vv. 44-47 is to point the broad 
contrast between the response of the sinner and the response of the Pharisee 
to the divine teacher. 

It remains to note a more serious inconsistency of thought in the narrative 


as it stands. The moral of the story of the anointing is very plain : the 
woman anointed Jesus because she loved. Her love covers her many sins, and 
on the ground of her love (v. 47) or her faith (v. 50) she receives forgiveness. 
On the other hand the parable of the two debtors, which Jesus propounds in 
answer to the unspoken reproaches of his host, teaches a different lesson. 
Here the love is not, as in the narrative, the condition of the forgiveness, but 
its consequence. He to whom little is forgiven loves little ; he to whom much 
is forgiven loves much. The two discrepant lines of thought run against 
one another in the false antithesis of v. 47. 

36 'Hp<uTa Se rt9 avrov rwv <&api(raia)i> r iva <j>d<yr) yu-er' avrov' 

37 KOI 6LCT\6(t)V 69 TOV OLKOV TOV <&apL<TCLLOV KaT6K\l0rj. Kdl 

IBov yvvrj 777^9 $)v ev rfj TroXet d/zapTtwXoV, KOI eiriyvovcra on 
Kardiceirai ev ry olfcua TOV Qaptcraiov, KOfiicracra dXaftacrrpov 

38 pvpov KOL ardaa oTrtcra) irapa TOU? vroSa? avrov K\aiovcra, 
T(H9 Sdfcpvcriv rjp^aro j3pe%eiv Toi>9 TroSa? avrov teal rat? 


39 7ro8a9 CLVTOV KOI rfaeifav TW /Jt-vpw. 'IScbv Se 6 

6 /caX,ecra9 avrov el^rev ev eavrm \e f ywv Ouro9 el r^v [o] 
eyivu>crKev av Tt9 Kal iroranrrj 77 yvvr) 

39 Trpo^TjTTjs] praem o B3 

36. The Son of Man is come eating is only in Lk. that the woman is a 
and drinking (v. 34). It is natural, sinner (a characteristic Lucan motif), 
therefore, to find him at a social fes- and it is only in Lk. that she weeps 
tivity. Kare/cA/^?/] The diners would and wipes away her tears. In Mk. 
recline on divans. It would thus be the woman anoints the head of Jesus. 
possible for the woman to approach Here the woman anoints his feet. 
him and kiss his feet from behind. John takes over from Luke the 

37. yui^] There is no clue to the anointing of the feet, and not very 
name or identity of the woman either appropriately, since he records no 
here or in Mark. The tradition of tears her drying them with her 
the Western Church from Gregory hair. The verbal resemblances be- 
the Great which identifies her with tween Luke and John can scarcely 
Mary Magdalene has no ground of be accidental. Jo. xii. 3 rjAei^ei/ 
support in the narrative. In John, TOVS TroSas 'Irjcrov /cat ee/j.agv rals 
Jesus is sitting at meat in the house Qpiiv avrrfs rov<s 7ro8as avrov. 

of Lazarus and is anointed by Mary, 39. [6] Trpofa'jrrj's] The article 

the sister of Martha and Lazarus. would mean * the prophet,' of. Deut. 

38. Conscious of her weakness and xviii. 15, as in Ac. iii. 22, Jo. i. 
sin, the woman approaches Jesus, 21, etc. But the article is probably 
lets her tears fall upon his feet, and interpolation. The observation is 
then wipes them off with her hair. It general : a prophet should be able 


atrrerai avrov, on a/JiaprwKos e<mv. Kal airoKpiOel^ o 40 
*lr)(rovs elirev irpos avrov HI/JLWV, eyjw <rol n eiTrelv. o 
Be AiBdcr/cdXe, eiTre, (frrjcriv. Bvo y^peofyO^erat, rjcrav Ba- 4 1 
vio~rr\ nvi' o 49 w<$>ei\ev Btjvdpia TrevraKocna, o Be 
eVe/309 Trevrv'jKovra. fjirj eyjovrwv avrwv airo'oovvai djj,(f>orepoi<s 4 2 
eyapio~aro. ri9 ovv avr&v ir\elov d<ya7nj(rei avrov; 
aTTOKpiOel^ Ziifjiwv eiirev TTroXa/jLjSava) on a> ro TrKelov 43 
eyapiO'aro. 6 Be elTrev avrfi 'O^o^w9 eKpiva<$. Kal arpa- 44 
d)fc9 7T/3O9 rrjv <yvvalKa rut ^ifjuatvi e(f)r) BXe7re49 ravrrjv rrjv 
yvvaiKa; elarf)\06v crov et9 rrjv otKiav, vBcop fMoi eVt 
OVK eBcoKa<f avrrf Be rot9 BaKpva-iv e(3pe^ev /JLOV rovs 7ro< 
Kal Tat9 OpL^lv avrijs e^euaffev. ^>i\if]fj J a f^oi OVK eo&)/ca9* 45 
avr'rj Be d<p ^9 elcrij\0ov ov BL\i7rev Kara<J)L\ovcrd aov TOV9 
3^0.9. e\aiM rrjv Ke(J>a\r)v JJLOV OVK ^Xeti|ra9' avrrj Be fAvpra 46 
<> rou9 7ro8a9 fjiov. ov yjtipuv Xe7&) CTOL, afyewvrau al 47 
duapriai avrrf^ al TroXXat, on rjy air?) a ev TTO\V q> Be 

47 at a/AapTiat. aurrjs cu TroXXat] CLVTI) iroXXa D ff 2 1 
ayaira om D : art rjyaTrrjcrev TroXu om e 

on rjyaTnjffef 

to discern the character of those 
with whom he consorts. 

40. ^t'/zcoi/] We have not before 
been told the host's name. It is the 
same 'as that of the leper host in 
Mark xiv. 

40-43. The Pharisee had assumed 
in his silent criticism that sin should 
and must debar the sinner from 
relations with God and with godly 
men. The parable counters the as- 
sumption by the principle that the 
forgiveness of a great debt will en- 
gender a proportionate love. 

44-47. If we interpret these verses 
on the basis of the preceding parable, 
the woman's great love is a proof that 
much has already been forgiven her. 
It is possible, though not entirely easy, 
to carry this interpretation through 
v. 47: "Since (on) she loved much, 
it follows that many sins have been 
forgiven her." The easier rendering 

is " her sins have been forgiven her, 
on account of, or on the ground of, 
her great love." And this rendering 
is supported by the end of the inci- 
dent, when Jesus pronounces a. con- 
eluding absolution upon the woman. 

The reading of D in v. 47 avoids 
the awkward antithesis by omitting 
the second clause. But it is unlikely 
that v. 4yb is less original than the 
parable of the two debtors. Wellh. 
thinks that D 'gives the true reading 
in the first half of the sentence. 
al u.p,apriaL O.VTTJS al Tro/XAcu he 
holds to be an awkward substitute 
for avrfj Tro/XAa, which originated in 
a purist objection to the neuter 
plural as subject to a plural verb. 

The contrast between Simon and 
the woman in w. 44-46 must not be 
too closely pressed. The idea is that 
the woman by her loving attentions 
has made amends for breaches in the 


48 a^ueraL, 6\Lyov ayaTra. eiTrev Be avrfj Afieajvrai GOD at 

49 afjuapriai. /cal tfp^avro ol avvavaiceifjievoi \eyeiv ev 

50 Tt? OVTO9 6o~Ti,v o? KOI (i^aprLa^ afyirjcriv ; elirev Be 
ryvvai/ca 'H TTtcrrt? o~ov crea'ajKev ore' iropevov et9 elprjwrjv. 

ordinary social etiquette of which 
the host has been guilty. But the 
contrast fails to carry forward the 
thought of the preceding parable, 
since, had Simon given the water, 
the kiss and the oil, they would 
testify to his courtesy as host, but 
not to love, either great or small. 

48. Cf. v. 21 supra = Mk. ii. 6. 

5O. )} TTICTTIS (TOV . . . Ct/ 

An exact equivalent to viii. 48 = Mk. 
v. 34. But in the latter case faith 
has operated to ' save ' the woman 
from her disease. Here faith is used, 
as in Paul, of the human response 
which appropriates forgiveness of sin. 

A WANDERING MINISTRY (viii. I-ix. 50) 

Luke now passes to a new chapter. Jesus enters upon a period of wandering 
in which, accompanied by the Twelve, he preaches the Kingdom of God. 
Luke here resumes his Marcan source, upon which he continues to found his 
narrative, until the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem (ix. 51). Except 
for one lengthy omission (Mk. vi. 45- viii. 26) after ix. 17, and two shorter 
omissions (Mk. vi. 1-6, the visit to Nazareth, and Mk. vi. 17-29, the execution 
of John the Baptist), the Marcan material is. reproduced with relatively slight 
abbreviations, transpositions and modifications. Luke has prefixed a brief 
introduction to this section, in which he indicates the manner of life of Jesus 
and his apostles. They are accompanied by certain well-to-do women, who 
provide for the needs of the band of preachers. We learn almost accidentally 
in Mark's narrative of the Crucifixion (xv. 40-41) that Jesus and his disciples 
had been accompanied on their journey to Jerusalem by women who had 
" followed him and served him when he was in Galilee." In his account of 
the Crucifixion Luke also refers to the presence of the women, but he has not 
there (xxiii. 49) reproduced the further details about the women from Mark, 
no doubt because he has already recorded them in this place. The Lucan 
list of names differs from the Marcan. Mary Magdalene is common to both 
lists. Joanna is not in Mark, but reappears in Lk. xxiv. 10. Susanna is 
mentioned here alone. Both Mark (xv. 41) and Luke (viii. 3) indicate that 
there were other women besides those whom they name. 

s teal auro? SiwSevev Kara iroKiv 

VII I. I Kat eyevero ev TO> 

1-3. There are many characteristic ai'ros . . . cf. i. 8 n. KaOetjs, Si- 

marks of Luke's style. For the oSeveiv (in N.T. only here and Ac. 

constr. Ktu eyei/ero eV TW . . . KCU xvii. I), 


KOI Kwfjirjv Krjpvcra-wv Kal evayyeXi^o/Jievos T^V fiacrCKeLav rov 
deov, KOI OL SoiSe/ca crvv avrq), KOI <yvvaLKe<$ Tive<s at rjaav 2 
T0epct7revfjievat, airo irvevfjidrwv Trovrjpwv teal ucr0eveia)v, 
7) Ka\ovfjLevij MaySdKrjvij, d<fi ^? Sai/iovta eirra 

, KOI Mwaz/a yvvr) Xov^d eirirpoirov 'HpwSov Kal 3 
^ovcrdvva Kal erepai TroAAat, am^e? SLTIKOVOVV avrois etc TWV 

Lucan words. Iv r< t o /<a^e^//s] Cf. the Herodian household. Xoua(s) 

vii. ii. NT-13. The name is found in a 

2. a<" Tyg e^cAy/Aj'^et] Prob. the Nabatean inscr., CIS. 227. 
original of [Mk.] xvi. 9 Trap' ^s Kal erepat TroAAat, al'rti/es 5t- 
K/3ef3\S]Kei 7TTtt SaifAOVta. rjKovovv tturois] Mk. XV. 41 at ore 

3. yi't'i) Xoi'^a] She Was therefore yi/ Iv rrj ^TaAtAatci, 7yKoAou^oui/ 
likely to be a woman of substance. cu'Toi, at StvyKovow avry, /cat uAAat 
Acts xiii. i refers to another member of TroAAat . . . 


Luke has made use of non-Marcan material since the account of the call 
of the twelve and the healing of the diseased (vi. 12-19) which preceded the 
Great Sermon. In Mark the call of the Twelve is followed by 

(1) the statement that his family came out to take him since he was 
thought to be out of his mind (iii. 20-21) ; 

(2) the dispute concerning casting out devils by Beelzebub (iii. 22-30) ; 

(3) the arrival of his mother and brethren and "the sayings of Jesus 
consequent thereon (iii. 31-35) ; 

(4) the parable of the sower and its interpretation with other sayings 
and parables (iv. 1-34). 

Luke omits (2) because he is to introduce another version of the same 
narrative at a later stage (xi. 14 f.). He omits (i), perhaps because it was not 
entirely to his taste. (The narrative seems scarcely to harmonise with the 
picture of Mary in cc. i.-ii.) (3) is deferred until after the parable of the 
sower and the other sayings, where the story, especially as told by Luke, 
serves to clinch the teaching of the parable. The parable of the sower 
stands well at the opening of the new section. 

After the conclusion of the sayings reproduced in Lk. viii. 16-18 there 
follow in Mark the parables of the seed growing secretly and of the mustard 



seed. The latter parable occurs later in the Gospel (xiii. 18-19 from Q) 
where it forms a pair with the parable of the leaven. Naturally, therefore, it 
is omitted here in accordance with Luke's practice elsewhere. The omission 
of the parable of the seed growing secretly is less easy to explain. 

4 ^vviovros Be o^Kov rro\\ov /cat rwv Kara iroKiv em- 

5 TTOpevo/Aevajv 777)09 avrov elrrev $ia 7rapa/3o\f)<; 

o crrreipwv rov (nretpat rov arropov avrov. /cal ev 

avrov o pep errevev rrapa rrjv 6S6v, /cal /car- 
/cal ra irereiva rov ovpavov /caretyayev avro. /cal 

erepov Karerreaev eVl rrjv rrerpav, /cal . fyvev 

7 o~t,a TO /J>r) e^etv l/cud8a. /cal erepov errevev ev 

rwv aicavOwv, teal crvi>(f)vei<rai, at a/cavOai aTreirvL^av avro. 

8 /cat erepov eTreo-fv et? rr)v jrjv rrjv dyaOijv, /cal fyvev 

/capirbv eKarovrarr\aalova. Tavra \eycov e<pa>vei 

4-15. || Mk. iv. 1-20; Mt. xiii. 1-23. here, as in the next verse, does not 

4. In Mk. iv. i Jesus is forced improve the picture. The seed would 

by the crowd to enter a boat, from not be more likely to fall to the birds 

which he addresses the people. Lk. if it had first been trampled down. 
has already made use of this scene 6. The Marcan description of what 

in v. i, and he feels himself at befell the seed which fell by the 

liberty to modify the detail. The wayside is here greatly abbreviated, 

scene is in or near a 71-0X19, but is and the point is obscured, apparently 

not further denned. because it was not understood. Here 

<rvviovTo<s . . . iTTiTropeuo/xevwi/] it is simply said that the seed had 

Both of these compounds here only no moisture. But in Mark the seed 

in N.T. (rvveifju (from et/u) good springs up quickly because it had no 

Greek from Homer downwards. eVi- depth of earth, and thus was not 

L Polyb., Plut., pap., LXX. strong enough to stand the rays of 

Sid Trapa/rtaArys] i.e. the the sun. But in the Lucan interpreta- 

parable of the sower, the one parable tion (v. 13) the Marcan form of the 

which Luke here records. Mk. ;u parable again emerges : /cat DUTCH 

f.v iraaofu<s )iat/ OVK 

7roA.A.a. c/x/ei/] In N.T. only here and v. 8, 

5. TOV o-TTct/jai] The gen. of pur- and Heb. xii. 15 ( = Dent. xxix. 

pose (rov) inserted by Lk. On 18 LXX). 

this constr. cf. Moulton, ProL p. 216. t'/cpxs] Good Greek from Homer 

Lk. supplies two-thirds of the total downwards. Plut., Lucian, etc., LXX 

number of exx. for the N.T. Jer. xvii. 8. Here only in N.T. 

TOV ariropov avrov] Add. Luc. Cf. 7. o-vv^veicrai. Here only in N.T. 

v. ii. The thorns and the wheat grew up 

KGU kareTrarrjOrf] Add. Luc. The at the same time. So Vulg. simul 

addition is not made use of in the exortae. 

interpretation, and the modification 8. cVotjycrci/ KCI/MTOI/] On this 


'O e^ft>y a)ra dicoveiv d/covera). ETT^COTWV Se avrov 9 

01 /JLaO^ral avrov r/? avrrj efy rj 7rapa/3o\r}. o Be eLTrev IO 
c T/u,tf SeBorai, yvwvai, ra /juvarripia rr}9 /SacrtXeta? rov 0eov, 
rot? e XotTTOt? ev Trapafto\als, iva BAenoNrec /v\h BAe'rroociN KAI 
AKOYONTGC MH cyNfcociN. ecrrw Se avTTj r) 7rapa/3o\rj. 'Oil 

Seraitism cf. iii. 8 n. ; Introd. p. 
Ixxxi. Mk. eS/Sov Kapwoi'. 

Ka.rovr(nrXa(riova\ The different 
measures of increase given in Mk. 

ravra Aeycoi/ ec/xoi'ei.] 'As he said 
this, he cried.' Mk. simply KO.I 


Both Mt. and Lk. substitute the 
part, o XMV for os e'^et Mk. This 
solemn exclamation occurs twice 
in Mk. iv. 9 (the original of this 
verse) and iv. 23 (om. Luc. infra, v. 
17). Mt. also gives it after the 
declaration that John the Baptist is 
Elijah, xi. 15, and it occurs in Lk. 
xiv. 35. Also Rev. ii. iii. after each 
of the messages to the Churches, and 
Rev. xiii. 9. The last is the only 
passage where the saying is used by 
another than Christ. 

9-10. Lk. has abbreviated and 
softened the Marcan dialogue on the 
purpose of the parables. In the 
first place Lk. confines the question 
to the particular case of the parable 
of the sower : TI'S avrt) et'^ >/ Trapa- 
/3oA?y, cf. supra v. 4. Contrast Mk. 


Su;Se/<a ras Trapa^oAa 1 ?. Lk. does 
not state (like Mk.) that the 
question was put to Jesus in private, 
and this omission weakens the im- 
pression of an esoteric communica- 
tion. But the idea that the parabolic 
teaching was a riddle to those who 
had not been granted the power to 
understand is retained, though in a 
less emphatic form, rots AotTrois is 
weaker than eVei'i/ois ro6s e'w in 

Mk., and the harsh concluding verse 
of the prophecy from Is. vi IJLI'J 
TTOTC e7rrT/D^wcrt /cat cifaOr) ai'rots 
is left out. On the interpretation 
of the Marcan text and its relation 
to the parables of Jesus reference 
should be made above all to Jiilicher's 
great work Gleichnisredc.n Jesu. The 
texts are discussed by Rawlinson, St. 
Mark pp. 46 f., and B. T. D. Smith 
on Mt. xiii. p. 135, who both 
accept Jiilicher's main contention, 
viz. that the parables which were 
originally illustrations came to be 
regarded as mysterious allegories 
which were intelligible only to the 
elect. One great difficulty in regard- 
ing Mk. iv. 10, 12 as historical is 
that it requires -apa/ to be 
used in two different senses (cf. 
Smith I.e.). Contrast Mk. iv. n 
e/caVots 8e rots e'w kv Trapaj3oXai<s 
TO, Trai'TO, ytVerat with Mk. iv. 33 
Kat rotaj'rats Trapa./3oX.aL<s TroAAats 
eAaAet ai5rots TUV Ao-yoi/, Ktt$ws 

et?y] Optat. in indirect questiori,-as 
often in Lk. 

10. vfilv SeSprat . . . rov $eoi>] 
Lk. agrees with Mt. against Mk. 
in inserting yvwva.1 and reading 
/jLV(rTTfjpLa in the plural (but C k 
syr.sin Clem Iren read /xixrr///Hoi/ 
in Mt. and this may be the true 
reading), yvwvai. is an interpretative 
insertion, which might well have 
been made independently by two 

11. ZITTIV Se avri] f] Tra^a^SoAiy] 
The difficult Marcan verse 13, i<al 
Aeyet airrots QVK ot'Sare riyc irapa- 


I 2 crTropo? earrlv 6 Xo-yo9 rov Oeov. ol Se wapa rrjv 6S6v elo~iv 
01 cifcovo-avres, elra ep^erat 6 $ui{3o\os KOI alpei rov \o^ov 

I 3 ttTro TT}? KapBias avrwv, iva pr) Tricrrevaavres o-(06&<nv. ol 
Be eVl rrj<? Trerpas OL orav tiKOvawviV fjuera %ap9 $e%ovrai 
rov Aoyov, teal ovrou pi^av OVK 6%ovcriv, OL 7r/}09 Katpov 

14 TTiarevovcnv teal ev tcaipw ireipao-fjiov a<f)i<rravrai. TO Be 
et9 Ta9 cucdvOas Trecrov, ovroL elaiv ol dtcovo-avres, /cal VTTO 
p,ept,fj,v(t)v Kal 7T\ovrov teal rjSovwv rov /3iov iropevop,evoL avv- 

I 5 TTVijovrat Kal ov reKeafyopovcriv. TO Be cv rf} /ca\p 

/3o/Vi)i/ TGU'TT/V, Kal TT<O<S 7ra<ra<s ras (see v. 6 n.), but here the Marcan 

7ra/>a/^oAas y^ojcrecr^e; is omitted. original is retained. 
It appears to conflict with the point Trurrevova-L . . . 7rei.paa-fj.ov] Again 

of view of the preceding verses, Lk. introduces the ordinary termin- 

(Se'Sorui KrA., and it implies a ology of the Church. Mk. 

reproof to the apostles which Lk. i<aipoi ewrti/, cira yei'Ojuej/7/s 

would be glad to omit. We pass at 

once to the interpretation of the one 

parable, which in Luke has alone 8aAioi'T<u. 

been the subject of enquiry. 14. 

> 8i(ay/j.ov . . . 

ac/nWavrat] Lucan. Mk. VKU.V- 

rou PIOV] For Mk. 

6 (T7ro/)os rrt i/ o Aoyos rov 6f.ov\ at Trepl rd AOITTO, e7ri6fyu,iai (om. 
The seed is the word of God, yet the D al.j, an awkward phrase which 
seed sown can be compared to the Mt. has omitted. Both words ry- 
recipients of the word. There is <$oi'?y and /3t'o? find parallels in the 

') not elsewhere 

here, as in Mark, a certain very later epistles. 

natural confusion in the thought, if in Gospels or in Paul, but in Tit. 

it is pressed, o Adyo? rov deov to iii. 3; Ja. iv. I, 3; 2 Pet. ii. 

Luke and his readers would no doubt 13. (3ios, apart from this passage, 

suggest the Christian preaching of occurs in the Gospels only in the 

salvation. TO Oeov is not in Mark, sense of ' livelihood,' Mk. xii. 44 

with the consequence that 6 Aoyos (=Lk. xxi. 4); Lk. xv. 12,30. For 

has a more general meaning : * the the usage of /i?to9 in this verso 

12. 6 86tt/3oAos] Mk. S 
Lk. uses 2arai/as elsewhere, as well 
as StaySoAos. 8ia/3oAos is not found 

in Mk. 

with the connotation of ' life in the 
world' cf. 2 Ti. ii. 4 ; I Jo. ii. 16, 
iii. 17. 

7ropa>o/zei/ot] ' go on their way 
and . . .' Cf. 2 Ren. iii. i. But 

KOU a'ipti. . . . cra>$a!criv] Lk. there is almost certainly a reminis- 

gives a conventionalised version of cence of Mk., who says that the 

Mk. ttTro T'r/s Kapoias UTJTWI/ re- cares of the age, the deceit of riches 

places rov ca-irapi^evov els avrovs, and desires for other things eunro- 

and the quasi-technical phrase of peno/jtei/at o-vvirviyown TOV Xoyov. 

Christian piety pr) Trir/To'crui'Tes oij TAefr</>o/Doixn,i'] ' bring no fruit 

<T(t>6wo-iv is added. to perfection.' Here only in N.T. 

13. /)i'ai/ OVK e^ouo-i] Lk. has only Good Gk. Theophr., also 4 Mace. xiii. 

mentioned the want of root above 20. Mk. u.i<apiro<5 y 


OVTOL slaw omz/e? ev tcapoia Ka\f) teal d<yaQf) aKOVcravres rov 

\6yov Kareyovaiv Kal KapTrofyopovcnv ev vTrofJiovfj. 

Qvoi<> Se \vxyov a^a? Ka\V7TTi avrov o'tcevei, ?} viroKara) 1 6 

iva ol elcnropevo- 

TO ^>w?. ov yap GGTLV KpvTrrbv o ov fyavepov 1 7 
ovoe dirofcpv^ov o ov /J,rj yi>a)o~Qf) teal et? fyavepov 
e\drj. BA-eVere ovv TTW? a/covere" 09 av jap e%?7> BoO^a-erai I 8 

15. kv HapSia. KuXy KCU dyadtj] 17. All that is hidden shall be 

Add. Luc. The familiar classical brought to the light and made known. 

Greek collocation KaXoKuyaOia is Lk. follows Mk. in connecting this 

a striking example of Hellenistic in- saying with the preceding by yu(>, but 

fluence upon a Gospel text. probably it was originally a separate 

i<aTe\ova-i\ 'retain it:' Kar^eLv saying (so Wellh.). It occurs again 

Lucan only in Gospels. Mk. rrapa- below, xii. 2 ( = Mt. x. 26), where see 

. note. Lk. omits here from Mk. the 

viro/jiovy] Lk. again omits from cry * If any man hath ears to hear, 

Mk. the varying yields of increase, let him hear.' 

ei/ rpuiKovra Kal [cv] erj/<oi/Ta KCU 18. /^AeTrere OTJI/ THUS . . . ] 'see 

[eV] e/cttTov, and substitutes the idea then how ye hear.' By substituting 

familiar in the early Church ' in TTWS a/covere for ri a/covere (Mk.) 

patience.' VTTO/AOV/) frequent in St. Lk. gives a somewhat different turn 

Paul. Also Heb., Ja., 2 Pet. In to the injunction. He has connected 

Gospels only here and infra xxi. 19. it with the following saying : os avyap 

1 6. X.v\vov cti/'tts] By the light we KT/\. The thought in Lk. appears 

should probably understand the to be: "Take heed how you hear: 

preaching of the word, which should he who hears the word profitably 

be set on high like a light for all to will profit yet more; he who hears 

behold. But this is a different con- carelessly will lose even what he 

ception from that of v. 10 supra, seems to have." In Mk., however, 

Cf. Wellh. on Mk. iv. 21. Lk. has the two sayings are divided by 

improved the Marcan sentence (/A>;TI another saying which Lk. has 

spheral o Au^i/os iVa . . . reOrj) by already given (vi. 38b) and which he 

making it an affirmative statement : here omits : eV <5 /xerpw fj.erpe?re. 

ouSets Au^i/oi/ a^tts KaAvTrrei . . . jJLeTprjO'faeTai VJMV i<al Trpourre.- 

1} TL07]criv. He has also added the flv/o-ertu The connexion in 

last clause : 'iva ol elcnroptvofjievoi Mk. between this saying and the 

... TO </>tus. By ' those who enter ' preceding /JAeVere ri u/covere is 

we may perhaps understand the obscure. The saying os u.v yap e^y 

Gentile converts. But Lk. appears /crA. reappears in the parable of the 

to have in mind another version of the pounds, xix. 26 (=Mt. xxv. 29). 

saying, since the form as here given Lk. has attenuated the paradoxical 

is in essential agreement with that form of the saying in his Marcan 

found later, xi. 33. I'TroKaTto /cAtV^s source, Kal o e'x" dpOijareraL a' 

alone reproduces Mk. iv. 21 wo TTJV CU'TOV, by reading o 3o/cet e'x^u'- 

K \ivr)v, and is not represented in At this point Lk. omits the 

x i 33. ( parables of the seed growing secretly 


avT<o, Kal o? av 

KOI o 


Pv n >r > /) / 5 1 

OOKGL e%eiv apurjcrerai air 

1 9 Hape<yevero Be rrpos avrov 77 fjujrrjp Kal ol dBe\<f)ol avrov, 
Kal OVK rjSvvavro crvvrv^elv avra> Bia rov o^Xov. d r rrr)ryye\'r) 

20 Be avrut 'H ^rrjp o~ov Kal ol do\(j)oi crov 

2 1 e'&> IBelv 0e\ovres ere. o Se uTTOKpiOels elrrev 

^lirjr^p JULOV Kal aSeX^ot aov ovroi elo~iv ol rov \oyov rov 
Oeov aKovovres Kal iroiovvres. 

22 EryeVeTo Be ev fjaa rwv rjfAepwv Kal avros eveftr) et? 

and the mustard seed, and also the 
Marcan conclusion to the section on 
parables (vv. 33, 34) : " With many 
such parables he spake the word to 
them, as they were able to hear, and 
without a parable he spake not to 
them, but privately to his own 
disciples he expounded all." Perhaps 
Lk. was conscious of a discrepancy 
between the former and the latter 
half of this Marcan text, of which the 
former suggests that the parables 
were spoken in order to be suitable 
to the capabilities of those who 
listened, while the latter recalls the 
doctrine of Mk. iv. n, 12 that the 
parables were a mystery whose 
meaning was only unveiled to the 
chosen few. In place of the Marcan 
conclusion we pass to the incident of 
the visit of Jesus' mother and 

19-21. By the omission of Mk. 
iii. 20-21 no motive is assigned for 
this visit. We may, if we will, 
suppose that they merely came to 
enquire after his welfare. The 
Marcan account is also otherwise 
abbreviated. The question ' Who is 
my mother and who are my brethren ? ' 
is left out. The Lucan narrative 
thus at the least lessens the impression 
of disharmony between Jesus and 
his relatives. It is not indeed said 
or here implied that his relatives 
belong to the class of those who * hear 

the word of God and do it,' but the 
role of the kinsfolk, as Luke tells the 
story, is rather to provide an occasion 
for the saying concerning the spiritual 
kinsfolk than to suggest as Mark 
does suggest a contrast between 
natural and spiritual relationships. 

19. crvvTvxfii'] Here only in N.T. 

SLUL TOV o^Aov] The whole situa- 
tion is vaguely conceived. There 
was a great multitude present (v. 4) 
when the parable of the sower was 
spoken. We are not definitely told 
but are probably intended to infer 
that the question of the disciples 
(v. 9) was put to him in private. 
Here again the multitude surrounds 

21. The concluding saying has been 
recast. Mk. iii. 35 "ISe rj p.^r'^p /J.QV 
Kal ol (xSeA</>CH fj.ov' os av Troirjcrr) TO 
^eAiy/jta TOV &eoi>, OVTOS aSeA(/>os /J.ov 
/cat dSeAc/>?) i<al ftf/Tr/p errrtV. By 
translating this into terms of ' hearing 
and doing the word of God' Luke 
relates the incident to the parable of 
the sower and its interpretation, 
and thus makes it close the para- 
graph. > 

22. eyevero Se tv [uo. TWV ly/xeptui/ 
/cat] || Mk. iv.. 35-41; Mt. viii. 23- 
27. In Mk. this story is closely 
connected in time with the parables 
which precede. Jesus is still in the 
ship from which he spoke the parable 
of the sower, and " on that day, when 


ica ot 

avrov, /cal elirev vrpo? avrovs 

e/? TO irepav TJ}? \ifwris, KOI avfydrj&av. 7r\eovrwv Be 23 
avrwv a(f)V7rv(i)O'ev. fcai Kareftrj \ai\aty dveaov et? rr)v 
\ifjbvrjv, teal crvve r ]r\'r)povvro KOI eKivSvvevov. rrpocrekOovres 24 
Be 8irj<yeipai> avrov Xe r yoz'Te9 'ETrtcrrara eTnardra, aTroX-Xi/- 
fjbeOa* 6 Be SieyepOels eVert^o-ez/ reo dveup /cal roS K\vSwvi, 
TOV vSaros, /cal eTravcravro, /cal eyevero ryaXrjvrj. elirev Be 2 5 
Floi) 77 TTtcrTi? v/jL&v ; (frofirjdevTes Be 

evening was come, he says to his 
disciples, Let us cross . . .," and they 
" take him as he was in the boat." 
But the connexion in Mark is prob- 
ably secondary and literary. Verses 
35-36 of Mk. iv. would read better 
without at? fjv in v. 36. Jesus would . 
then make the proposal to cross the 
sea while still on land, and then the 
disciples would take him in the boat. 
The supposed insertion thus makes 
a connexion with iv. i ; it also 
reinforces the difficulty of under- 
standing how the disciples privately 
questioned Jesus about the parable 
of the sower while he was still in 
the boat (iv. 10). Lk. and Mt. 
both ignore the Marcan connexion. 
In Lk. the parable of the sower is 
not spoken by the seaside. Here we 
make a fresh start : " On one of 
those days he embarked on a ship 
with his disciples." 

Tr)s At/xvrys] To the Gentile Luke 
the sea of Galilee is not a 0a/\.uo-cra 
but \ifjivr). X.ifj.vr), apart from Rev., 
Lucan only in N.T. 

tti/^^(Ttti/] tti/ayw 13 times in 
Acts. Elsewhere in N.T. here only. 

23. TrAeoi/rwi'] Rev. xviii. 17. 
Otherwise only Lucan (4 times in 
Acts). a.<j>virv<a<rei'] Here only in 
N.T. Lk. transposes the Marcau 
order and mentions the sleep of 
Jesus before the storm. He does 
not reproduce from Mk. that Jesus 
slept in the prow and on a cushion. 

/cuT/3r/ AutAai/'] A sudden squall 
is liable to burst upon the sea of 
Galilee from the surrounding hills 
and gorges. 

/cat eKivSvvevov] Lucan. Acts 
xix. 27, 40. Elsewhere in N.T. only 
i Cor. xv. 30. 

24. eTrto-rura] Cf. v. 5 n. Here it 
replaces 8i8d<ri<a\f (Mk.). ctTroAAi!- 
fjLeOa] The appeal is softer than the 
peremptory words in Mk. : ov ^eAet 
croi on a7roAAiyze#a ; Mt. has made 
a similar change : Ki'/3ie, cruarov, 
ttTro \XvfjLe6a (viii. .25). 

r(I) avefj.ii> i<al T(3 /cAuScovi] The 
wind and the wave are regarded as 
quasi-personal powers which, like the 
devils, yield to the Master's powerful 

Wellh. thinks that TTJ tfttAacnn; 
(placed by D in a slightly different 
position) is not original in Mk. 
The wind is the demonic force which 
plays upon the passive water. But 
both Mt. and Lk. make Jesus 
address the sea as well as the wind, 
and this is in favour of retaining the 
word in Mk. 

/cAi'Swi't] In N.T. here and in Ja. 
i. 6; Greek poetry from Homer down- 
wards, and later prose, LXX. 

25. TTOII 7) 7rurTiS vfjLiav ;] Gentler 
than the rebuke in Mk. rt SetAot 
ecrre; ov/rw c'x ere TT'KSTIV; 

(liofJ-tjOevTes Se lOavfiairavl A slight 
agreement with Mt. (ot 8e avOpu- 
TTOL iOu.vfJM(rav Aeyovres) against 


\eyovTes 7rpo<? aX\,ij\ov<} TtV a pa ovros eanv on fcal rols 
uve/jiois eTTLTacrcrei KCU rro vBari, KOI viraKovovaiv avr< ; 

26 Kal Kareir\evcrav et? rrjv ^a>pav TWV Tepaarivwv, 

27 *?Tt<? ecrrlv avrijrepa TT}? FaXtXat'a?. e%e\6ovTi Be aura) eVt 
TT)I; 7?}z> viri'ivTrjaev avrjp rt? e'/e TT}? TroXew? e^tuy Bai/novta.' 
Kal xpovM iKavtp OVK eveBvaaro Ifju'mov, KOI ev oliiiq OVK 

28 e'fjuevev aXA,' eV rot? ^vf]^aaiv. iBwv Be rov *\rjaovv a 

26 Ttpaayvuv BC*D latt syr.hl-mg sail : Tepyfarji'oji' KLX62 i etc 33 157 700 
pal boh arm : radapyvuv A mult al syrr 5" 

Mk. (/ecu (f>o/3i')8r)crav fieyav <j)6/3ov). in Mt. Similarly syr.vt and the 

Loisy's suggestion that Mt. and Lk. Byz. text have assimilated Lk. to 

may have used in common both Mt. Pepyecrrji'iov is strongly attested 

Mk. and the source of Mk. seems un- for Lk. (less strongly for Mk., where, 

necessary. Mark's phrase is awkward however, it is given by syr.sin). 

and called for amendment. The Ttpyeo-ijvwv is probably an Alexan- 

agreement may well be accidental. drine correction, perhaps by Origen, 

26-39. || Mk. v. 1-20; Mt. viii. 28- intended to rectify the geography. 

34. The Gerasene Demoniac. This Cf. Orig. In Joann. torn. vi. 41. 

is a strange story. Jesus frees a Origen rejects Gerasa and Gadara as 

possessed man from a multitude of geographically impossible, and gives 

devils, which forthwith take up their reasons from geography and mystical 

abode in a herd of swine. The etymology for accepting Gergesa. 

swine hurl the devils and themselves Ffpyeira, u(/>' vys ol Ytpytcruloi TroAts 

to destruction in the lake. It is dp^am irepl rr]v vvv Ku\ovfj.tvi)v 

not profitable to attempt rationalising Tt/3e/otaSa Xifivr^v. It remains ob- 

versions as to what may have occurred. scure what locality was intended. 

The story was related by people to Gadara is eight miles to the south 

whom belief in possession by evil of the lake, Gerasa was two days' 

spirits was assumed as a matter of journey away on the edge of the 

course. Possibly it was a popular desert. Sanday and others con- 

tale which in some way that cannot jecture that the place referred to 

now be recovered came to be attached was the modern Kersa on the E. 

to Jesus (cf. Bultmann, p. 129). side of the lake opposite Magdala. 

26. Kal Kare/rAevcrar] Lk. again ?]TIS IVTIV ai/TtVe/Darvys FaAiAat'as"] 

uses a good (not a technical) nautical Geographically more precise than 

word. Here only in N.T. Mk. Mk. ei's TO Trepav TIJ<S ftaAuo-o-^?. 

?}X.9ov. Cf. iv. 31. 

TOJI/ Fe/aa^voji'] The combination 27. eeA0oi/Ti Se awry] Aneatuseof 

of B with D latt is in favour of the the participle in place of the awkward 

reading Fe/HWD/vuJi/ here. In Mk. gen. absol. in Mk. followed by the 

is read by KBD latt. dat. : e^eA^oi/ros Se currou . . . O.VTM. 

is the best attested read- 28 f. Lk. has here greatly re- 

ing in Mt. The Western text has duced the redundancies of Mk.'s 

assimilated the texts of the different narrative, and at the same time 

Gospels by introducing Ytpav^vuv added the statements that the man 


TrpoffeTrecrev avr(o Kal (jxovfj fjLeyd\rj elrrev Tt e/aot teal 
oral, 'lijcrov vie [rov 6eov\ rov v-fylarov, BeoaaL aov, /JLJJ 
fji fiaaaviarjS' irapt'jyyeXhev yap rut TrvevaarL rw aKaOaprw 29 
e%e\6elv arro rov avOpurjrov. TroAAot? yap . ^povoL^ crvvrip- 
avrov, Kal eBecrfievero dXixreaiv Kal 7re8at9 <f Xacrcro- 
, Kal Biapijcrawv ra Becr(j,a r}\avvero arro rov Baifjioviov 
ra9 epijuovs. eTnjpcttrija-ev 8e avrov o '1 770-00? Tt, crol 30 
eanv ; o 8e elirev Aeyiaiv, on elo-rjXdev ^ai^QVia 
et9 avrov. Kal irapeKaXovv avrov "va fj/r] eTrirdgrj 31 
avrois et9 rrjv aftvaaov urreXdelv. 'Hy 8e eVei dye\r) ^oipwv 3 2 
iKavwv fiocTKOfAevr] ev ru> opei,' Kal rrapeKaXeaav avrov (va 
7rirpetyrj avrols et9 eKeivovs elo~e\6elv Kal trrerpe'ty'ev avrol<$. 
t%e\0ovra Be ra Sai/JLovia arro rov avOpdirrov elarfkOov el<$ 33 
roi/9 'xoipovs, Kal wpfJirjaev 1} dye\ij Kara rov Kprj/jivov elf rrjv 
XifjLvrjv Kal arrerrviyr). 'ISovre? Be 01 ftocrKovres ro yeyovos 34 
e<pvyov Kal cnniyyeiXav et9 rrjv rro\iv Kal et9 rot/9 tiypovs. 
ef)\6ov Be IBeiv ro yeyovo? Kal rj\6av Trpos rov ^Irjcovv, Kal 35 
evpav KaOrjpevov rov avOpwrrov d<j) ov ra Bai/Aovia 
luaricrpevov Kal awfypovovvra rrapa roi/9 i rroBa<; [rov] 

28 TOV Geov om DIS I g 1 

bad for long been unclothed (inferred posed to conjecture that in an earlier 

from [[jLUTiiTfiivov below, Mk. v. 15 form of the story the devil may have 

= Lk. v. 35) and that 'he dwelt in been compelled by some device to 

no house.' That he had often been disclose his name, and that this 

bound and had broken his chains feature was suppressed when the 

is transferred by Lk. rather awk- story was told of Jesus. Wellhausen 

\vardly to follow the first address thinks that the point of the devil's 

of Jesus to the possessed man. reply may be that he refuses to 

28. Kal </>om; /uyaA?; e^-ei'] It is give his name, and gives his number 

the devil who speaks through the instead. 

man, as is shewn both by the words 31. e/'s TT)J' u./3vcrcro\'] i.e. into the 

(LI] //e fiucravio-fls, ' torment me not,' abyss of hell, to which the devils will 

and by the explanatory words which be consigned at the last judgement, 

follow, 7ra/j//yye/\Aei/'ya/>T<o7ri'et'/xaTi This is Lk.'s version for Mk.'s more 

r<5 a.Ka6dpTip. naive expression : c'o) TJ)S \tupas. 

30. Tio-06 ovofjid eVri ;] The know- 32. uyt'/X?/ \oipw] The owners 

ledge of the demon's name would, therefore were not Jews. The popu- 

according to ancient belief, give the lation on the further side of Jordan 

exorcist an advantage over the and the sea of Galilee was largely 

demon. Bultmann (p. 130) is dis- heathen. 


36 Kal ecfroftijOijcrav. d7njyyeL\av Be avroi? ol IBovres 7TW9 eVco 

37 o BaifiovicrOefa. Kal rjpwrTicrev avrov airav rb 7rX?}#o9 
Trepi^capov rwv Tepacrrjvwv d r jre\0elv air avrwv, ori $08(0 
fteydXa) crvvei^ovro' avrbs Be e'yw,/3a9 et9 TT\OLOV virecrrpe'tyev. 

38 eBeiro Be avrov 6 dvrjp dcf? ov e^e\rj'Xv0i ra Baiuovia elvai 

39 crvv avr(o m direX-vcrev Be avrov \eycov "TTrocrrpecfie et9 rov 
oiKOV o~ov, Kal Biyyov ocra croi eiroirjcrev 6 ^609. Kal drr-rfKOev 
KaO^ oXrjV rrjv TTO\IV Krjpvacrwv ocra eiroirjcrev avra> 6 'Irjcrovs. 

40 'Ez/ Be rco VTrocrrpecfieiv rov 'lycrovv direBef-aro avrov o 

41 0^X09, rfcrav yap Trdvre? TrpocrBoKWvres avrov. Kal IBov 
rj\6ev dvr)p w ovoua 'Iaei^o9, Kal OVTO9 ap^tov T/}9 crvv- 
ayayyr}? vTrfjp^ev, Kal ireo-cav irapa rovs 7ro8a9 'Irjcrov irap- 

42 eKaXei avrov elcre\6elv et9 rov OLKOV avrov, ori Ovydryp 

avrco a9 erwv BwBeKa Kal avrrj uTreOvrjcrKev. 

7-30 may be cited as partial parallels 
for the combination of sections, where 
the explanation is probably literary 
rather than historical. 

40. kv 8e TW {i7ro(rTpec/)etv TOI/ '!.] 
Jesus now returns to the W. shore 
whence he had set out. So Lk. 
correctly interprets the Marcan text 
as it stands : KO.L 8t,a7repa<ravro's TOV 
'Irjcrov ev T<3 TrAo/y TraAii/ els TO 
Trepav. Schmidt urges that TO Trepav 
elsewhere in the Gospels and rrepav 
in LXX describes the country 
E. of the sea and of Jordan. He 
holds that the present connexion 
of the narratives is artificial, and 
that the raising of Jairus' s daughter 
took place E. of the sea possibly 
at Bethsaida at the N.E. corner of 
the lake after Jesus had crossed 
from the western shore. 

37. Lk. characteristically makes 
the petitioners to be 'the whole 
multitude of the neighbourhood,' 
and characteristically adds the ex- 
planation of their petition 6V i ^o/3w 

39. 6 $eos] So Lk. interprets 6 
/a'ynos of Mk. no doubt correctly. 

Ka6' o\t]v r~>]v TroAii/] The city 
is not named. It is, according to 
Mk. and Lk., some place near the 
lake in the country of the Gerasenes. 
Mk. here says that the man pub- 
lished his news abroad in Decapolis. 
Decapolis is nowhere mentioned in Lk. 

40-56. The healing of the woman 
with the issue of blood : the raising 
of Jaime's daughter. \\ Mk. v. 21- 
43; Mt. ix. 18-26. This is the only 
case in the Gospels in which the 
accounts of two separate miracles 
are woven into one another. The 
obvious explanation may well be the 
true explanation, that so it happened. 
The woman with the issue of blood 
was healed as Jesus was on the way 
to the house of Jairus. So K. L. 
Schmidt, R.GJ. p. 148. On the 
other hand, Mk. iii. 20-35 and Mk. vi. 

41. OVTOS ttyo^wv rr<s 
vtrrjpxev] V7rdpx<, 'to be,' Luke, 
Paul. Not in the other Gospels. Mk. 
here has et? TMV upxrui>a, / ytoywf. 

7ra.peKo.XcL . . . eurf.\6elv\ Lk. 
transposes the direct speech of Mk. 
into indirect. 

42. [J.ovoyev'rjs . . . SuiSe/cu] That 


'Ez/ Se TO> VTrdyeiv avrov oi o%\oi avveTrviyov avrov. Kal 43 
yvvrj ovcra eV pixreL ai^aro^ O-TTO ercov SwSe/ca, rjrt? ov/c 

air ovSevbs OepairevOrfvat, 7rpocre\6ovcra oTTicrdev 44 

rov KpacnreSov rov l/marlov avrov, KOI Trapa^prjfjia 
ecrrr) rj pvo~is TOV afytaro? avri)^. Kal elirev o '1770-01)9 Tt? 45 
s fjiov ; dpvov^evwv Be irdvrwv eiirev o Tlerpos 

ra, oi o%\oi, a-vve^ovcriv ere Kal dTroOXiftovcnv. o Be 46 
'1770-01)9 elirev "ti-^raro /JLOV -u<?, eyw yap e<yva)v ^vvaynv 
e^ektfkvdvlav air ejjbov. tSovcra Se rj yvvrj on OUK e\aOev 47 
rpepovo-a rj\6ev Kal irpoo-Trea-oucra avru> Si fjv air lav ij-^aro 
avrou air^^eiKev evaiTTiov iravros rov \aov Kal &>? IdOrj 
Trapa^pij/jia. o Be eiTrev avry vydrijp, 77 Tria-ris a~ov 4^ 
(recrcoKev ere* Tropevov elf elprjwrjv. "Ert avrov \a~kovvros 49 
ep%eral T49 irapa rov dp^La-vvaycoyov \eycov on 

43 i?Tts] add tar/sots TrpoirapaAajcracra 0X0^ ro^ /fto? codd paene onuies : om BD 
syr.sin sah boh codd arm 44 rou Kpaa-iredov fortasse ex Matt ix. 20 ; 

cf. Mk v. 27 : om. D a fl' a 1 45 Herpos] add /cat ot trw airrw vel /cat 

oi /J.T avrov codd paene omnes : om BIT 700 al pane syrr(sin.cur) pal sah 

the child was an only child is added 
by Lk. The statement that she 
was twelve years of age is made by 
Mk. at the end of the narrative and 
transferred to the beginning by Luke. 
Kal avTi) core^i/Tyo-Key] Substi- 
tuted by Lk. for the Marcan vulgar- 
ism efr^arojs e'^ei condemned by 
Phrynichus ccclxviii. 

43. According to the reading BD 
syr.sin Lk. omits from Mk. the 
statement that the woman had 
expended all her livelihood upon 
physicians without profit. If the 
writer is Luke the physician, it is 
natural that he should do so. 

44. According to the reading of 
the best texts Mt. and Lk. agree 
here against Mk. in adding the word 
TOV Kpao-ireoov. This may be acci- 
dental, or, more probably, we should 
omit the word in Lk. with D etc. 

45. apvov/JLeviov Se Travrcov] Add. 

IleT/aos] Peter is the spokes- 
man, as often. But in Mk. it is 
the disciples who speak. The addi- 
tion Ktti ot crvv avno found in most 
MSS. is probably due to harmonising, 
ot 6'^A.ot crtii/e^ot'frti' rre /crA..] This 
is more deferential than the brusque 
expostulation in Mlc. /ifAoreis TOV 
o'^Aov arvvOXifiovTii o~e, /cat Aeyets, 
TI'S fj.ov tjif/aTO ; 

46. lyto yap eyi/wi/] Lk. has 
transposed what in Mk. is statement 
of fact into a direct statement by 
Jesus himself. Jesus is conscious 
that the woman has established con- 
tact with his own healing power. 

47. evcuTriovTravTos TOV AaoC] Add. 
Luc. The woman must needs bear 
her testimony before the multitude. 

49. epx^Tat Tts] The only historic 
present which survives in the Marcan 
sections of Luke. Mk. ert avTov 
AaAoiWos epxovTai. Cf. Introd. 
p. Ixii. 


5O 17 0vydTr)p crov, fjbrjKeri, o~KV\\e rbv BiBdcrKoKov. o Be M 77(701)9 
dKovaas direKpidrj CLVTM M^ <po/3ov, /JLOVOV Tricrrevaov, 

5 I crwdrfcreTai. e\6u>v Be et9 TTJV oiKiav OVK a<f>i]KV 

Tiva crvv avrq) el fj/rj Herpov ical *\wdwr]v teal 'Ia/ceo/3oy KOI 

5 2 TOV irarepa rrjs TraiBbs teal rrjv prjrepa. etcXaiov Be 
Kal eKOTTTovro avT^v. 6 e elirev 

53 uTreOavev a\\a KaOevBei. Kal 

54 direOavev. auro? Be Kparqo-as rr}? 
5 5 ^eytov ' H 7rat9, eyeipe. Kal eireffr 

Kal dvea-rr] Trapa^prjfjia, Kal Biera^ev avrfj BoOfjvai 
56 /cat e^eaTrja-av 01 yovels avrr)?' o Be TraprjyyeiXev avrofc 

K\alere, ov yap 
avrov, e^Sore? on 




elirelv TO 

54 t) TTCUS] iter Diat cf. vii. 14 supra 

50. Kal (rcoi9?JcreTcu] A Lucan ad- 
dition which, however, is scarcely an 
improvement upon the terse answer 
as given in Mk. 

51-54. Lk. has greatly abbre- 
viated the narrative of Mk., and in 
so doing has obscured the story. In 
Mk. Jesus arrives at the house in 
company with Jairus and enters with 
the chosen three. In the house he 
finds the lamentation proceeding. He 
casts out the mourners, and then 
takes in the father and mother to the 
place where the child lies, and there 
raises the child. Lk. summarily 
says that Jesus allowed no one to 
enter the house except the three 
disciples and the father and the 
mother of the child. This makes a 
much less coherent story, for the 
mother has not been mentioned as 
having gone to meet Jesus, and it 
is more natural that she should have 
remained in the house, as Mk. im- 
plies. Lk. does not say that Jesus 
cast out the mourners, and he does 

not distinguish the second room where 
the child lay. 

51. YLerpov Kal 'Itodvyv Kal 
'}(iKit)(Bov\ Lk. changes the Marcan 
order of the names and places John 
before James. So again ix. 28, Ac. i. 
13. This is perhaps significant. We 
may compare the close association of 
John with Peter in Acts iii. i f., iv. 
13 f., viii. 14. James, on the other 
hand, precedes John in the, list of the 
Twelve, vi. 14, and in v. 10, ix. 54. 

53. eiSdres cm cart^ui/ey] This is 
a Lucan addition. It is more ex- 
plicit than Mk., whose narrative, as 
it stands, is at least patient of the 
interpretation that the child was not 
really dead, even if that interpretation 
was not intended by the evangelist. 

54. f) TTCUS, e'yape] Lk. here, as 
elsewhere, avoids the Aramaic words 
reported by Mk. 

55. Kal SieraAv . . . (/>ayeu'l 

'>' b> ' / J 

Lk. improves Mk.'s order by placing 
the command to give food to the child 
before the command to tell no man. 


The preceding narratives of miraculous cures wrought by Jesus are followed 
m Mark by the account of the unsuccessful visit of Jesus to his native place 


Nazareth, where his message is refused and his miraculous powers encounter 
unbelief. This Marcan section has already been utilised in Luke's fuller 
picture of the mission to Nazareth (c. iv.) and is therefore omitted here. Luke 
passes to the next Marcan section the Mission of the Twelve which he 
reproduces with small variations. 

The missionaries are to travel without money, provision, or superfluous 
clothing. They are to accept hospitality at one house in a city, and there 
they are to remain until they leave that city. Those who refuse to receive 
them are to be left while the missionaries press on. The essential contents of 
the charge reappear in another version (Q) in c. x. (The Charge to the Seventy) 
where see introduction and notes. Perhaps Mark has abbreviated some 
longer version, such as that in Q. 

The instructions reflect the mind of a community which lives in expectation 
of the near approach of the kingdom. They may certainly be taken as good 
evidence for the methods of early missions of the Palestinian Church. Whether 
they go back to an actual mission in the lifetime of Jesus, as the canonical 
Gospels represent, is a question which must be regarded as uncertain. " The 
section," says Wellhausen (Evangelium Marci, p. 44), " contains no historical 
tradition . . . the Twelve merely make an experiment and remain afterwards 
as lacking in independence and as passive as before, although the experiment 
succeeds. In truih Jesus instituted no experimental missionary journeys 
with his seminar. But as testimony for the r nature of the oldest Christian 
mission in Palestine this instruction is of value." Bultmann (p. 87) takes a 
similar view : originally the speaker was the risen and exalted Lord. At the 
time of the composition of Mark's Gospel the instructions no longer suited in 
detail the conditions of the mission in the wider Gentile world, and in conse- 
quence they were thrown back into the period of the earthly life of Jesus, and 
converted into a chapter of history. 

It may have been so. On the other hand there seems to be no conclusive 
reason why we should assume that Jesus did not at some period associate 
the Twelve with him in his work of preaching the advent of the kingdom, 
and the saying of Mark i. 7 (cf. Luke v. 10) may be taken to support the 
supposition that he did. 

2,vvtca\ecrdfjiei>os Be rou? Soj&e/ea e&wKev avrotf ^vvapiv I IX, 
e^ovalav eVt Trdvra TO, Saifjiovia KOL voaovs 

1-2. Lk. does not repeat from I. lirl -jravra ra Suipwu] More 

Mk. that the missionaries went out comprehensive than Mk. riav irvevfjid- 
two by two. , TWV TMV Ktt6*apT(oj/ and characteristic 


2 Kal aireo-rei\ev avrovs Kypvcrcreiv rrjv (3acn\eiav rov Oeov KOI 

3 laa-Oai, teal elirev Trpo<$ avrovs M^Sez/ aipere et? rrjv 6S6v, 
fjbtjre pdftSov /i/ryre Trypav f^rjre aprov /j^jre dpyvpiov, /j,r)T Bvo 

4 %iTwva<; e^euv. Kal et? r)v av oliciav etVeX^re, e/cei 

5 Kal eKeWev e^ep^ecrOe. icai oaoi av fjirj ^e^wvrai 
e^ep^ofJievoL CITTO Tfj<$ TroXew? eKeiwrjs TOV Kovioprov airo 

6 TTO^WV vfj,wv d7roTivda-(TT et? /juapTVpiov eV avrovs. 
ep'XjbfJievoi Be ^Lrjp^ovTO Kara ra? /ca>//,a9 evayye\i,%6fj,6VOL 
Oepairevovres Travra^ov. 

of Lk. The healing of sick is recorded An awkward change in construction 

by Lk. as by Mk. at the close of which is taken over from Mk. : iva 

the narrative, and a corresponding prjSev aipiaariv . . . Kal p) cvSi'- 

commission to heal is prefixed by cracr$cu. 

Lk. to the charge. The express 4. Kal eis i/v av O/KIUJ/] Mk. here 

statement of the purpose of the mis- makes a fresh start with Kal e'Aeyey 

sion Kvjpvcro-civ T. j3. r. 9. Kal iao-Oai ai'rots, possibly an indication that 

is added by Lk. he is passing to a fresh part of his 

3. JU.'/;T pd/BSov] Lk. agrees with source. Lk. omits. 

Mt. x. 10 against Mk. (ct aij 5. Cf. x. ion. 

f)df38ov JLOVOV) in forbidding a staff, 6. euayyeAt^o/xej/ot] Lucan. Mk. 

and the Marcan instruction to wear eKrjpvav iva /xerai/owcrtj/. 

sandals is here omitted. iiTroSr/pxru Trai/Ta^ov] Lk. adds an adverb 

are forbidden in Mt. x. io = Lk. x. 4. with a universalising force. Cf. v. I 

aipere . . . ayre e^eiv] et passim. 


Luke follows Majrk in introducing an account of Herod's enquiries and 
surmises about Jesus, which makes the required literary break between the 
mission and the return of the Twelve. In Mark the conclusion of Herod that 
Jesus was John, whom he had beheaded, risen from the dead, provides an 
occasion for the narrative of the death of John the Baptist. This Luke omits. 
He nowhere records the death of the Baptist, only leaving it to be inferred 
from the words of Herod : " John I beheaded." The imprisonment of John 
has been recorded in c. iii. 

The mention of Herod's enquiries in Mark is not made to bear directly 
upon the narrative, though shortly afterwards (vi. 45) Jesus crosses over to 
Bethsaida with his disciples, and a little later, after a return to Gennesaret 
(vi. 53), he sets out on journeys (vii. 24) outside Palestine and the area of 
Herod's jurisdiction. A connexion between Herod's activities and the with- 
drawal of Jesus may have been contained in Mark's source, and may have been 
suppressed, partly perhaps owing to reluctance to represent Jesus as yielding to 


threats of the tetrarch. The activities of Herod and the departure of Jesus 
are again brought into connexion below, xiii. 31 f. The latter passage may 
have been a variant Version of some lost continuation of this present section 
which has disappeared from Mark and from the parallels which depend on 
Mark. In Lk. xiii. 31 f. there is a manifest concern to explain that in leaving 
Herod's territory Jesus did not yield to threats from Antipas. 

"\\Kovaev Be 'HpwBrjs o rerpadp^rjff TO, yivbpeva irdvra, 7 
Kal BirfTtopei Bta TO \eyecr0ai VTTO TIVWV OTL Icodvrjs r^yepOrj 
CK vetcpwv, VTTO Tivwv Be oTi> 'HXeio.? efydvr), a\\wv Be OTL 8 
7rpo(f)r)Tr)<s Tt? T&V dp^aiwv dvecrTr). elirev Be [6] 'HpwBr}^ 9 
eya) d7reK(j)d\icra' rt? Be ecrTiv OVTO? Trepl ov CLKOVW 
Kal erTeb iBeiv avTov. 

7. 6 TeT/oaap^r/s] So Lk. More agree with Herod's intention as re- 

accurate than the popular use of the ported by the Pharisees in xiii. 31. 

title 6 /^acriAei's in Mk. TO. yivo/xei/a 8td TO Aeyeo"$ai VTTO TII/(OV] It is 

Trai/Ttt] 'all that was happening.' thought by some critics that the 

Lk. again makes one of his uni- various surmises here reported were 

versa! statements. Mk. fyavepov yap imported into Mk.'s narrative from 

eyet/ero TO oVo/xa ai'rov. the later narrative of the question 

/cat StT^TTopet] The perplexity of to the disciples at Caesarea Philippi 

Herod is peculiar to Lk. In Mk. (Mk. viii. 27-28 = Lk. ix. 19). They 

he affirms confidently : ' John, whom were at any rate, a part of the 

I beheaded, is risen.' This may be Marcan text as known to Lk. Sm 

intended literally, ' is risen from the TO A.eyeo-0cu VTTU rivwv 6'rt is an 

dead,' or perhaps more probably elegant paraphrase of Mk. KCU e'Aeyoi/ 

(so Wellh., Klostermann) in a loose OTI, ' and it was being said that.' 

sense: 'This is John over again.' 8. e'^ai/r/j 'had appeared'. as 

Lk. represents Herod as ending on foretold in Malachi. Mk. simply 

the anxious question, ' Who is this? ' 'HAei'us eart. 

and adds that 'he sought to see d/VAwi/ Se OTL . . . di'ecmy] 'that 

him.' This corresponds with Luke's a prophet of the old time had arisen.' 

account of Herod in the narrative Mk. ' that he was a prophet, as one 

of the trial (xxiii. 8), but it does not of the prophets.' 

(Mk. vi. 30-43 ; Mt. xiv. 13-21 ; Jo. vi. 1-13) 

The Apostles return from their journey and report their success. Jesus 
takes them apart. They are followed by multitudes who remain with them 
till eventide. At the command of Jesus, the disciples distribute to the 
multitudes their own provisions of bread and fish after these have first been 
blessed by Jesus. 

The action of Jesus in ' blessing and breaking the bread ' is recorded in 
words closely similar to those used at the account of the last supper and of 


the supper at Emmaus. The similarity will not be accidental. This story 
was in all probability valued from the early days of the Church as a historical 
prototype of the Eucharistic meals of the early community (Acts ii. 42, 46, 
xx. 7). When therefore John (c. vi.) attaches a Eucharistic discourse to his 
account of the miracle, he stands in line with primitive tradition. 

" There is no ground for holding the feeding of the people to be mythical. 
The miracle disappears with the figures which, in oral tradition, are regularly 
liable to perversion. There then remains the genial picture of a beautiful 
evening on a lonely spot by the sea. The multitudes lie in groups upon the 
green grass, while the disciples move in and out distributing bread and fishes. 
The point is that Jesus not only feeds the people with doctrine, but also cares 
for their bodily wants, convinced that the provisions which have been ' 
brought for himself and his disciples will suffice also for the unbidden 
guests " (Wellhausen, Evang. Marci, p. 50). 

IO Kat viroa-Tpetydvres ol cnroa-roXot, Birjyrjcravro avrut 

oaa eVoiT/cray. Kat 7rapa\a{3a)v avrovs 
I I KCLT Ibiav ei? TTO\IV KdXovfjievrjv BrjOcraiSd. OL 8e 

r)KO\ov9r)crav avru>. fcal aTroSe^a/neyo? aurou? 
avrois irepl rrjs /?acrt\eia? rov 6eov, KOI TOIMJ 

10 tr6\ii> Kd\ovfj.ev>ji' Rydffatda. J< a BLXlEl 33 aegg : KwfJLyv \eyo(j.evi)v ByOffcuda D: 
mult inter se variant codd TOTTOV fp^iAov fc$*etb $g ^7 syr.cur (cf. Mk vi. 32 ; Matt 

xiv. 13) : TOTTOV eprj/JLOf TroXews /caXou/uei/Tjs Erjdffa.idai' AW mult al 5" 

10. tlsTr6\.ivi<aXovfj.evrivl5ir]0<rai.Sd] an inconsistency between this verse 

This, or a's KW/ZT/I/ K. B., no doubt, is and v. 12, which is due to Lk.'s 

the true reading. TOTTOI/ /)//xoi>, either modification of Mk. Mk. gives KCU 

substituted for these words or con- <i7TY)\Bov tV TW irXoup et? '^prjfwv 

flated with them, will be due to TOTTOI/ /car' IStav. Lk.'s introduc- 

assimilation to the other Gospels, tion of Bcthsaida at this point is 

and perhaps also to a sense of the probably a sign that he was ac- 

incongruity with v. 12, where the quainted with the Marcan material 

disciples and the multitude are said which he has left out after the end 

to be 'in a desert place.' Streeter of this paragraph. In Mk. vi. 45 

prefers to read> on the ground after the feeding of the multitude 

that it does, and 7roA.ii/ does not, the disciples go to Bethsaida, and 

suit the context. "One does not in Mk. viii. 22, (immediately before 

retire for privacy to a 'city'; but the confession of Peter, viii. 2yf. 

one may do so to a country village " = Lk. ix. i8f.) 'they come to 

(Four Gospels, p. 569). This is no Bethsaida.' 

doubt true of town - dwellers in u. TTC/H r/'ys /Jam/Was TOU 6eov] 

England, but would it hold of an This definition of the content of the 

oriental village ? Whether we read teaching of Jesus is added by Lk. 

or TroAti/, there appears to be Cf. Ac. i. 3. 


eftovras OepaireLas laro. 'H Be rj^epa ijp^aro K\iveiv 12 
7rpo(re\6ovT6<; Be 01 Bcf)BeKa eiirav avrw A r jro\vcrov TOP 
ov\ov, 'iva iropevOevres els T? KVK\W Kw/Jias KOI 
Kara\va'(i)a'iv Kal evpwcnv e'mcrLTicrfJLOv, on wSe ev 
T07r eVyU.ez'. elvrev Be irpos avrovs Acre avrois <payelv 1 3 
vp,els. ol Be euTrav OVK elalv rjfMV 7r\elov rj aproi Trevre 
KCU l-)(Qve<z Bvo, el ^TI TropevQevres rj/uets ayopda-cD/jbev et? 
iriivra rov \aov rovrov fipwfjLara. rjcrav yap wcrel avBpes 14 
irevraicLa-^ikioL. elirev Be 7rpo9 TOV? yu,a^ra? CIVTOV Kara- 
K\ivare CLVTOVS /cXtcrta? wcrel ava TrevTrfKovTa. KCLI eiroL^a-av I 5 
OUT&><? Kal KariicKivav afravra^. A,a,/3ft>y Be TOU? irevre 1 6 
aprovs KOI rovs Bvo l^Bvaf dva/SXe-^a? et? rov ovpavov 
evXoyrjcrev avrovs KOI KareKKaaev Kal eBuBov rot? ^aO^Tal^ 
irapaOelvai, T&> o^Xw. Kal e^ayov Kal e^oprdo-drjcrai' Trdvres, I/ 
TO TrepHTcrevaav avrols KKafr^aTwv KO$IVQI 

1 6 ovpavov"] add Trpocrriv^aTo /ecu D 

KOL rov<s XP l/av IUTO] This 14. vjcrav yap wcret KT/\.] The 

is not in Mk. There is a similar number of the multitude is trans- 

expansion in Mt. xiv. 14 Kat posed by Lk. from the end of the 

<77rAayxj/icr$r7 kir cu'rots Kat Idepa- Marcan narrative. 

Trevcrev rovs appiacrrovs avriov. The . . . Kare/vAtvav] It 

wording is entirely different in Mt. is probable that Lk. read aVa/o\.ii/at 

and Lk., and the two additions inMk. vi. 39(DLal), not dvaKXcd^vat 

may be reasonably supposed to be (KB I etc., fortasse ex Mt. xiv. 19). 

independent. /cAtona] ' a dining party.' Good 

12. f] 8e r)/j.epa -rjp^aro K\LVZIV\ Of. Greek from Homer downwards. Here 

xxiv. 29. Mk. Ko.1 -ijSf) &pa<s ^roAAvys only in N.T. 

yei/o//ei/^s. ava TreimyKOi/Ta] Mk. Kara e/caroi' 

K-araAucrwcrti/ /cai] Add. Luc. eTTi- /cat Kara TrevTtJKovTa. 

o-iTtcr/jioi/] Here only in N.T. Class. 16. The addition in D Trpoa-j/i'^aro 

LXX. Luke greatly abbreviates his /cat is perhaps original. Cf. iii. 21 n. 

source. and ix. 18. 


(Mk. viii. 27 f. ; Mt. xvi. 13 f. ; cf. Jo. vi. 67 f.) 

We pass over several Marcan sections (see Introd. p. lix) and come 
to the great scene which divides St. Mark's Gospel : the confession of Peter 
followed by the first prophecy of the Passion, and the call to all who would be 
disciples to take up their cross and follow Jesus. 



But the scene in Luke does not hold the decisive position which it holds 
in Mark. The great central section of the Gospel (ix. 5i-xviii. 14) divides the 
first two Marcan prophecies of the Passion (ix. 22 and 44) from the third 
(xviii. 31), and the many other themes which intervene divert the steady 
movement towards the end which controls the arrangement in Mark. 

The most important change which Luke makes in his source is that he 
omits Peter's rebuke of Jesus after the prophecy of the Passion, and Jesus' 
rebuke of Peter. The omission was no doubt deliberate in order to avoid an 
incident which might seem to reflect unfavourably upon the apostle. 

I 8 Kal eyevero ev TU> eivau avTov nrpoo-ev^o^evov Kara novas 
o-vvrjaav CLVTW ol /jbadrjrat, /cal eV^coT^crez/ avrovs Xeycov 

19 TLVCL /AC ol o^Xot \e<yovo~iv elvau; ol Be aTTOKpiOevres elirav 
'ladwrjv TOV QairTKSTrjV, aXXot Be 'HXetai/, aXkoi Be on 

20 TrpofyrjT'rjS TLS TWV dp^aucov dveo-Tt). elirev 6*e aurot? 'Tytiet? 
Be Tiva pe \eyere elvai; Herpo? Be airoKpiOel^ elirev Toz> 

2 1 yjpiGTov .TOV 6eov. o 8e eiriTLfjirjO'as avrols TraptfyyeiXev 

22 {jbybevl \eyew rovro, eliru)v OTL Aet TOV vlov TOV avOpwirov 

1 8 (rwrjcrav] awi}VTf\Go.v B 245 f 

1 8. After the mention of Bethsaida 
as the site of the feeding of the 
multitude there is in Lk. no further 
indication of place until the beginning 
of the great central section, ix. 5 1 . In 
Mk. Jesus and his disciples are on the 
way to Caesarea Philippi when Jesus 
asks ' Who do men say that I am ? ' 
Lk. has omitted this, perhaps 
because he and his readers were 
uninterested in geographical detail, 
and says that Jesus was praying by 
himself. Cf. iii. 21 n. and v. 16 n. 
supra. The mention of the prayer 
of Jesus at this point may be a 
reminiscence of the lonely prayer 
recorded in Mk. vi. 46. a-vv'?]cra.v is 
difficult after Kara /xoi/as, but ex- 
cellent sense is given if we assume B 
crvvfjVTrjarav to have preserved the 
original text. It is not easy to 
see why Streeter should conjecture 
as the original reading, and 

suppose that it has been corrected 
by an ancestor of B by the prefixing 
of the prep, a-vv (Four Gospels, p. 
177 n.). di/raw is a poetic word never 
found in the N.T., while cruravTaoj is 
common in Gk. prose and is attested 
four times elsewhere in Luke- Acts. 

19. The answer of the disciples 
repeats the surmises which, according 
to v. 8, had already come to the 
ears of Herod. Lk. has revised the 
last conjecture (Mk. here et? rStv 
rrpo(f)r)Tw) in the same words as 

20. Peter confesses him to be the 
Christ. TOV Oeov] Add. Luc. 

21-22. The prophecy of the re- 
jection of the Son of Man, his death 
and resurrection, is in Mk. the 
beginning of a fresh paragraph: i<al 
i/'p^aro SiSacrKcii/ avrovs /crA. Lk. 
has closely linked it with the com- 
mand to tell no man, thus seeming 


iradelv KOI diro^oKL^ao-Qfivai airo TWV 7rpe<r{3vTepwv 
iepewv KOI jpa/jifjuarecov teal a r troK r ravQr]vai teal rfj 
TpLTrj rjfjLepa eyepQrjvai. "Q\6yev Be Trpos iravras Et rt? 23 
9e\ei OTTto-G) fMov ep^ecrOai, apvrjo-dcrOw eavTov teal apdrw 
TOV crTavpov avrov Ka0* rj^epav, real aKokovOeirw //.ot. 09 jap 2.4 
av OeXy rrjv Tfrv%r)v avrov crwcraL, aTroXecret avTtjv 09 S' av 

Trjv ^v^v avTOv 6V6K6V efj,ov, OVTOS <r<wcrei avTijv. 
TL yap a)(j)e\iTai, avOpwiro^ xepSrjcras TOV Kocrfjiov o\ov 2$ 
eavTov Be diro^eaa^ rj tyfjuwOeLs ; 09 yap av eTrawxyvOfj p,e 26 


aia"y\jvQr](T&TCLi, oTav e\0y ev Trj Bo^rj avTov Kal TOV 7rarpo9 

23 KO.I aparta . . . Kady/jiepav om Dal: Ka6i)(j.epa.v om C mult al syr 
(sin.hl-mg) Orig 26 Xo7ous om D a e 1 syr (sin. cur) Orig 

to indicate that proclamation of his eVe/cei/ e/zo?] Here as in xviii. 28 

identity would be useless at present, ( = Mk. x. 29) Lk. omits /<at TOT; 

since he must first be rejected. evayyeXtov. He never uses the noun 

22. Here Lk. omits the objection except twice in speeches in Acts 
of Peter and his rebuke. xv. 7, xx. 24. 

23. The approaching death now 25. Lk. improves the Greek of 

rbv 6'x/Xoi/ crvv rots 

casts its shadow over the teaching. Mk. by transposing TI yap 
Men are called to surrender their avOpwTrov into the passive, and con- 
lives, as Jesus must surrender his, verting /<epS^crat and frjuuaBfjvai 
to win them in the age to come. into participles in agreement with 

e'Aeyei/ Se 7r/>6s Trai/Tas] An ab- av6pia7ro<s. ctTroAeo-as ?}] Add. Luc. 

breviation of Mk. Kat 7r/>oo-/<aAecra- Lk. omits the explanatory verse 

Mk. viii. 37 TI yap 801 
di/TaAAay/ia rrjs 

The explicit reference to 'the 26. Whosoever shall be ashamed 

cross ' seems to presuppose the cruci- of Jesus and his words, of him the 

fixion. The saying reappears xiv. 27 Son of Man will be ashamed. Here 

( = Mt. x. 38 Q), where see note. as in the similar saying, xii. 8, g 

KaO* fipepav] Add. Luc. Theaddi- ( =Mt. x. 32, 33), it is not necessary 

tion facilitates the practical applica- to assume that the speaker was 

tion of the saying to the life of the understood to identify himself with 

Christian Church. Cf. I Cor. xv. 31. the Son of Man. Here the Son of 

Tats avTou, ciirev 

The omission of KaO' rj/Atpav by 
syr.sin, lat.vt. and others may be 
ascribed to the influence of the 
parallels. The omission of the entire 
sentence in D a 1 is harder to account 

24. This saying also reappears in 
a slightly different form xvii. 33 
(Mt. x. 39). 

Man appears to exercise a more 
exalted function than in xii. 8, 9. 
There he makes confession of his 
own before the Father; here he is 
more closely associated with the 
Father. In Mt. xvi. 27 he is directly 
regarded as Judge. Lk. has slightly 
modified the language of Mk., and 
the modification may be significant. 


27 Kdl T&V dryucov a<yrye\(ov. Ae<ya> Se vfuv a\r]0w$, elcr'iv rives 
avrov CO-T^KOTCOV of ov fir) yeiKrcovrai, Oavarov e&>9 av 

TOV Oeov. 

27 Tf\v jSatriXetaf TOV 0eou] TOV mov TOV avdpca-rrov epxo/J.evov ev TT\ do^f) avTov D Orig 
(cf. Matt xvi. 28, xxv. 31): the kingdom of God coming in glory syr.cur 

In Mk. the Son of Man comes in the 
glory of his Father with the angels; 
in Lk. he comes in his own glory 
and the glory of his Father and the 
glory of the angels. Possibly, as 
Loisy suggests, the Lucan phrase- 
ology indicates an approximation to 
the 'pluralistic' theology of the 
Apologists ; cf. esp. Justin, Ap. i. 6. 2, 
where ' the host of angels ' finds men- 
tion between the Son and the Spirit. 
Loofs, Dogmengesch.* p. 126. 

27. ecus a i/ . . . rrjv P. T. 6.] There 
is no direct indication how Lk. 

understood this prophecy, but his 
omission from Mk. of the words 
ekrjX'vOvZav ev 8vvdfj,i is significant. 
The first generation must have almost 
if not quite died out, and Lk. and 
his contemporaries still looked for a 
'coming in power.' But Acts i. ii. 
suggest that he would have been 
able to recognise a fulfilment of 
the coming of the kingdom in the 
coming of the Spirit. The omission 
makes it easier to adopt such a 
spiritualised interpretation for the 
present text. 


The narrative of the Transfiguration stands in close connexion with the 
preceding confession of the Messiahship of Jesus. A supernatural manifestation 
sets the seal of a divine confirmation upon Peter's confession. The proclama- 
tion that Jesus is Son of God, already made at the Baptism, is now renewed 
in the presence of the chosen disciples, and the disciples are bidden to hearken 
to him. Jesus is seen speaking with the two greatest of the figures of the old 
covenant Moses and Elijah who, by their presence, testify to his Messiahship. 

The narrative has been very differently estimated. See the commentaries 
on Mark. Wellhausen holds that the narrative was originally the account 
of a resurrection appearance perhaps the appearance in Galilee, presupposed 
in the last chapter of Mark which has been thrown back, at a later stage 
of the tradition, into the earthly life of Jesus. So Bultmann and others. 
Again, affinities have been traced between this narrative and the Ascension 
in Acts i. (the disciples with Jesus upon a mount ; the cloud ; two heavenly 
visitants) with the suggestion that we have here two divergent developments 
of the same tradition. On the other hand Harnack (Sitzungsb. d. Berl. Alcad.. 
1922, pp. 78 f.) and E. Meyer (Ursprung i. pp. 152 f.) strongly defend the 
view that the narrative is based upon an actual experience of the disciples 
in the lifetime of Jesus. Meyer traces the scepticism of modern critics to a 


'rationalistic' prejudice. Whatever may be the true psychological account 
of the matter, there is abundant evidence that men have been convinced 
that they have themselves seen visions and heard voices. That there is a 
' mythical ' element in the present narrative is incontestable, but this may 
be explained from the background of ' myth ' in the minds of Peter and 
his fellows. Harnack well argues that Peter's conviction of the resurrection 
of Jesus is, psychologically, more explicable if the vision of Christ risen 
confirmed the memory of an earlier vision which he had experienced while 
Jesus was with them in the flesh. 

Norden (Die Geburt des Kindes, pp. 96 f.) follows Max Dessoir in giving 
an altogether different turn to the interpretation of the Transfiguration. 
Starting from the verb iirio-Kia.tiv (v. 34=Mk. ix. 7), he suggests that the 
original version behind Mark may have represented the cloud as descend- 
ing upon Jesus alone. The ' overshadowing ' he illustrates from the mystical 
ideas and experiences which lie behind such passages as Philo, Quis rer. div. 
her. 53, p. 511 M. ; De Somn. i. 19, p. 638 M. ; Quod deus immutabilis, i. 
p. 273 M. (OTO.V d/jLvSptaOev eTricrKiacrOy TO 8iai/otas <ws), where the darken- 
ing or overshadowing of the mind calls out an ecstatic mystical experience. 
Thus on this interpretation the fundamental idea in the story of the Trans- 
figuration is a mystical union between the Divine Father and his Son. But 
it is very questionable whether we are justified in calling in Hellenistic 
mysticism to illustrate the primitive Christian narratives of the early 
synoptic tradition. Here it is unnecessary and as it seems to the present 
editor quite wrong to import these ideas, which are certainly not suggested 
by the text as it stands. The background of the Old Testament affords 
sufficient illustration. The 'overshadowing' of the cloud is a recognised 
symbol of the Divine presence (Ex. xl. 29 (35) i<al OVK i/Suracr#?/ M 
6? rrjv cr/<ryi/7)i/ rov fj-aprvptov, on iirecrKiafcv ITT' avrrjv rj 

u So^iys Kvpfov 6ir\TJo-0ri rj a-Krjvyj ; 3 Regn. viii. 10), and the thought 
here is not mystical communion of Father and Son, but the Divine attesta- 
tion of Jesus as Son of God, that is as Israel's Messiah. 

There are a fair number of divergences from Mark, but they are " well 
within the limits of editorial conjecture or inference from the context " 
(Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 215). 

Efyeyero Be /j,era TOU? A-o'yoi'? rourof? &><rel i]p,epai OKTCO 28 

28. eyei/ero <)e pera TO?;? Aoyou? introduced by Luke, rois Aoycnis 
The Biblical phraseology is TOUTOVS, i.e. the sayings recorded in 


7rapa\a(3wv Herpov Kal lajdvrjv Kal 'Ia/co>/3oz/ dvefif) els TO 

29 6'j009 rrpovev^acrOai. Kal eyevero ev TO) Trpocrev^ecrdai, avrov 
TO elBos rov rrpoo-wrcov avrov erepov Kal b i/jLaria/jibs 

30 avrov \evKos e^acrrpdrrroiv. Kal IBov dvBpes Bvo crvve\d\ovv 

31 avra), otrives rjcrav Mwvaijs Kal 'HXeta9, ot btyOevres ev Bo^rj 
eXeyov rrjv e^oBov avrov r)v rnjLe\\ev TrXrjpovv ev 'Iepovcra\tfiui. 

32 o Be Tlerpos Kal 01 avv avrw rjaav pefiapij/jievoL vrcvw' Bia- 
yprjyopija'avTes Be eiBav rrjv B6%av avrov Kal rovs Bvo di 

3 3 Toi9 o~vveo~rwras avrw. Kal eyevero ev Tc3 

the preceding verses. Or else TOUS 
Aoyous may be a Hebraism, 'after 
these things' (so Wellh.). Cf. I Mace, 
vii. 33 /cat /iTa TOWS Aoyovs TOI'TOUS 


OKTcij] Mk. /zera 
This is the only place 
in Mk., apart from the last days, 
where a definite interval of time is 
noted. The explanation here may 
be that the connexion between this 
paragraph and the preceding already 
existed in Mk.'s source. Wellh., on 
the other hand (Ev. Marci, p. 71), 
in accordance with his view of the 
narrative (see introd. above) thinks 
that the six days may originally have 
determined the interval between the 
death of Jesus and his appearance in 
Galilee, tuo-et ?//zepcu OKTW is prob. 
a loose expression meaning * about a 
week' (cf. Jo. xx. 26) and thus does 
not differ essentially from Mk. 

HeTpoi/ Ku.1 '[wdvrjv /cat 'Ia/<a)/?ov] 
On the Lucan order of the names cf. 
viii. 51 n. 

ts TO 6'pos] A reader of Luke 
naturally recalls the mountain to 
which Jesus retired to pray, vi. 12. 
But Mk. gives no article cts opos 
tyrjkov, and according to Mk.'s 
version Jesus may be presumed to 
be still in the neighbourhood of 
Caesarea Philippi. 

That Jesus retired to pray and 
that it was while he was praying that 

his appearance changed is stated by 
Lk. alone, cf. iii. 21 n. 

29. TO etiSos . . . eVc/oov] Lk. 
avoids Mk.'s word /j-erefjiop^todyj 
( = Mt. xvii. 2 ; elsewhere in N.T. 
Ro. xii. 2, 2 Cor. iii. 18), possibly 
because of its heathen associations. 

i/xttTtcr/xos . . . A.ei>Kos] Lk. omits 
Mk.'s homely comparison Acu/ca Ai'ai/ 
oia yvafavs ITTI T^S yrj<s ov SUI/UTCU 

31. ot o0$i/Tes ev Sc^f}/] Mk. 
simply uxfrdr) UUTOIS 'HAetas vvv 

c'Aeyoi/ rrjv eoSov avrov KT/\.] 
Mk. says that they spoke with 
Jesus, without giving the subject of 
their speech. Lk.'s version sets the 
scene in relation to the preceding 
prophecy of the Passion. 

e'oSos] Of death ; again in N.T. 
only 2 Pet. i. 15. Also in Wisd. iii. 
2, vii. 6 ; Jos. Ant. iv. 189 err' coSou 
TOU ffjv, and see Preuschen-Bauer, 

32. 6 Se 

/cat ot criij/ avno 

/crA.] At the time of the appearance 
Peter and his fellows had been sunk 
in sleep. They awake and behold 
Jesus in glory with the two visitants. 
As Moses and Elijah begin to depart, 
Peter addresses Jesus. All this is 
Lucan interpretation of the scene, 
without parallel in Mk. The words /cat kv r<o Sta^wpt^ecr^at aiVous 
aV aurou probably convey Lk.'s 


avrovs air avrov elirev o Ilerpo? Trpos rov 'Iqo-ovv E?rt- 
o-rdra, KCL\OV zariv rj/jbd<; wSe elvai, KOI Trotr/crw/zey cr/e^m? 
Tpels, fjiiav crol Kal fjiiav Mwucret Kal ^iav 'HXeta, fjurj et'Sw? 
b \eyei. ravra Se avrov "keyovros eyevero vefyeXr) Kal eV- 34 
e(TKia^ev avrovs' e^oftijOrjo-av Se ev ro3 elcreX-Oelv avrovs et9 
rr)V i>6^>e\rji>. KOI <f)c)vr) <yevero etc T?}? vefye\ric; Xeyovcra 35 
OWTO? ecrriv 6 vlo<$ fjiov 6 e:XeXe<y//.ez/o5, avrov uKovere. Kal 36 
eV TW ryevea-Oai rrjv (fxovrjv evpedr) 'I^croO? yttoz^09. /cat 
ecrLyrjo-av Kal ovSevl a r irr\<yyCh.av ev eKeivais ra*9 
ovSev w 

35 o eK\e\ey/j,evos J<BLS (o e/cXe/cros 9 l) a ff 2 1 syr (sin.hl-mg) aegg : o 
AOD al pier b c e f g vg syr ( 5" (cf. Matt xvii. 5, Me ix. 7) 

interpretation of the dazed words of an echo of Deut. xviii. 15 (applied 

Peter : Peter sees the heavenly figures to Jesus by the early Church, Ac. 

about to depart and therefore pro- iii. 22, Jo. i. 21) TT/JO^T^V e/c 

poses that tents should be put up in aSe/\(toj/ crou ws e/xe 

which they might remain. i<vpio<s o ^eos <rou o-ot, avrov O.KOV- 

Mk. adds that Peter knew not crecrOe. The transposition of the 

what to say, ' for they were afraid.' words (Mk. aKovert avrov) in Lk. 

In Lk. the fear of the disciples is is perhaps to be ascribed to remini- 

associated with the entry of Jesus scence of this LXX text. 

and the prophets into the cloud. 36. In Mk. Jesus himself enjoins 

34. 67reo-/aaet/ . OUTOVS] The pro- silence upon the disciples until after 
nouns are obscure, but the meaning the resurrection. He has already for- 
seems to be that the cloud over- bidden the devils to make known who 
shadowed Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, he was; now the disciples are similarly 
Similarly in the next sentence the charged to keep silence concerning 
disciples are subject to tyofBijOrjo-av, the proof of his divine sonship, which 
and avrot's again means the three has been vouchsafed to them. Lk., 
figures in glory. This is confirmed by on the other hand, merely makes the 
the next verse, where the voice comes statement that in fact the disciples 
to the disciples ' out of the cloud.' in those days told no man what they 

35. 6 6/c/YeA.ey/xevos'] This is no had seen. 

doubt the original Lucan reading, the Lk. omits at this point the ques- 

variants being due to assimilation, tion of the disciples concerning the 

The word occurs in this quasi- coming of Elijah and the reply of 

technical sense here only in N.T., but Jesus. Luke nowhere identifies John 

cf. o e/</XeKTos xxiii. 35 n. 'the Baptist with Elijah 'who was 

avrov d/<overe] There is probably to come.' 


In Luke, as in the other synoptic Gospels, the Transfiguration on tho 
Mount is followed by a descent into a scene of suffering where Jesus brings 


alleviation. Luke, like Matthew, has very greatly abbreviated the lengthy 
Marcan account of the healing of the possessed boy, omitting the conversation 
with the father about the boy's sickness which Mark recounts as occurring 
during a seizure of the boy, and also the stages of the boy's gradual recovery 
after Jesus has exorcised the spirit. That Matthew and Luke should agree 
in much of their abbreviation is not strange. Neither this agreement nor 
some minor agreements in language are enough to warrant the hypothesis 
of any second common source. 

37 'Efye^ero Be rfj e^fjs rjuepa, Kare\0ovrcov avrwv dtro rov 

38 opovs avvi'jvrrjaev avr<p 0^X09 rro\vs. Kal IBov dvrjp drro 
rov 6yXot> ejBoiyaev \ey(ov AiBaaKa\e, Beouai, aov emftiKe'ilrat, 

39 errl rov vlov aov, on, uovoyevrfs aoi eariv, Kal IBov rrvevua 
\auftdvei, avrov, Kal e^e^vr)? Kpd^ei, Kal arcapdaaei avrov 
aerd d<j>pov Kal yw,o\t9 aTro^copel arc avrov avvrplftov avrov 

40 Kal eBerjOyv rwv uaQrjrcov aov f iva eKfidXwaw avro, Kal OVK 

4 1 ri^vvY)6ir]aav. drroKpt,6el<s Be 6 'I?;cro)9 elrcev 'H yeved 
amaros Kal BLearpaufjuevr), e&>9 irore eaoaai rrpos vuas Kal 

42 dve^ouat vuwv ; Trpoadyaye &Be rov viov aov. en, Be rrpoa- 

37 T"n e ^y i7/*e/)a] 5ca TTJS ??^e/)as D simil lat.vt. syr.vt sah cod 41 KO.L 

diea-Tpawevr) oni e Marcion (apud Tert et Ei)iph) : aTrtoros et dteo-Tpa/jL/jLevr] trans- 
ponunt syr.vt 

words should not be interpreted out 
of the actual situation, but regarded- 
as " the speech of a divine being, who 
has appeared for a brief interval in 
human form, and is soon to with- 
draw again to heaven " (Dibelius). 

Kal StecrT/5a/z/xe^?/] Not in Mk., 
but found also in Mt. Possibly the 
words are not original here. See crit. 
note. In any case they are an echo 
of the Old Testament. Cf. Deut. 
xxxii. 5, a passage which is also 
quoted in Phil. ii. 15. 

<SSe] Another minor and probably 
accidental agreement with Mt. against 

42. ert Se Trpocrp)^ofj.evov avrou] 
The seizure in Mk. comes on as 
the spirit beholds Jesus. Lk. makes 
no such connexion. 

37. rxTTo TOV. o^oovs] Cf. v. 28 n. 

38. O'TI /xoi/oyei/^s /xot ecrrti'] A 
Lucan addition, for which cf. vii. 12 
and viii. 41. 

40. The failure of the disciples to 
deal with the case is reproduced from 
Mk., but it does not, as in Mk., 
lead on to a subsequent conversa- 
tion with Jesus as to why they had 

41. <3 yecea aTTtcrros . . . dve^o/jiat 
v/xaii/;] This apostrophe (from Mk.) 
does not seem to correspond well with 
the situation. To whom is it ad- 
dressed ? To the multitudes ? or to 
the disciples ? c5 yei/ea air terror seems 
to call for a wider reference than to 
the disciples. But why should the 
boy's possession call for a general 
rebuke to the people ? Perhaps the 


ep%ofMei>ov avrov eppr)%ev avrov TO SaL/jboviov KCLL crvvecnTdpa- 
%ev eireri^o-ev Se 6 'Irjcrovs rw irvev^an rw d/caddpro), KOI 
Idararo rov TraiSa KOL dTreSca/cev avrov rw irarpl avrov. 

o Se 

Travre? em rr; 

Kat aTreSco/cei/ avrov r<u irarpl 
avrov] An interesting illustration of 
Lk.'s free treatment of his source. 
He has left out Mk.'s account of 
the gradual restoration of the afflicted 
boy, and he has added this slight 
touch to finish the picture. It is an 
exact parallel to vii. 15 /cat e'Sto/cei/ 
avrov ry /Mjrpl avrov. 

43. The private colloquy between 
Jesus and the disciples here falls out 
(Mk. ix. 28, 29), and the paragraph 
concludes, as so frequently in Lucan 

rov Oeov. 


accounts of a miracle, with the wonder 
of the people. 

eTrt ry /zeyaA-etoTT/Tt] Here only 
in the Gospels. The word occurs in 
non-religious associations in Inscrr. 
( 666. 26; 669. 9), and 
rarely in LXX (Jer. xl. 9). It is 
found several times in early Greek 
Christian literature, always, as here, 
in relation to God or divine attributes. 
Acts xix. 27 (of Artemis) ; 2 Pet. i. 
16; Ign. Rom, (address); I Clem. 
xxiv. 5 ; ad Diogn. x. 5. 


These three paragraphs which close the northern ministry in Luke are 
taken over from Mark, where they occur in the corresponding place and the 
same order (Mk. ix. 30-40). Luke omits a collection of disjointed sayings 
which follow in Mark. He has no parallel to Mk. ix. 41 (on giving a cup of 
cold water in the name of a disciple), nor to Mk. ix. 43-47 (" If thy hand 
cause thee to offend," etc.). But he has a parallel to Mk. ix. 42 in x vii. 2, 
and to Mk. ix. 50 in xiv. 34. 

8e 0avua6vra>v eVt ITCLO-IV 049 eVotet elirev irpos 

1 o (T\ I /) f /> J \ ^ t n V 

avrov vyecrue U/A649 et9 ra wra vpcov rovs 44 




yap wo9 rov avupwirov ///eAAet Trapa- 

f / / * / 

43b. Trdvrtav Se Oavuafovruv /<rA.] be forewarned 1 as to what lay be- 

Lk. has already omitted to state fore him. 

that Jesus left Galilee before the 44 
Confession of Peter and the Trans- 
figuration; similarly here he omits 
from Mk. the statement that Jesus 
returned to Galilee, and that he 

passed through incognito. Lk. has the events which have just been 

created instead his own setting for recorded (cf. v. 28 n.). yap may 

the prophecy. The world (Trdi/rco)') then bear its usual meaning ' for,' 

was wondering at all his deeds, and ' since.' It is necessary for the 

the wonder of the worl,d made it disciples to remember these events, 

necessary that the disciples should , for their faith is to be tried by 

ei's TO, wra . . . rovrovs] 
Add. Luc. The language is Biblical, 
cf. Ex. xvii. 14 So? ei's TU, &ra 
'Ii/crot. Aoyous is taken by some as 
a Hebraism for " these things," i.e. 


45 BiBoffdai, et9 %eipas dvdpwTrwv. ol Be rjjvoovv TO pfj/jia TOVTO, 
Kal rjv 7rapaK6Ka\v/u,fjLevov O-TT' avT&v f iva fj,ij 

avTO, KOI ecf)o/3ovVTO epa)T'rjo~ai avTOV Trepl TOV 

46 TOVTOV. WiarfkOev Se SfcaA-o^cryao? ev avrols, TO 

. ' * if /v > ' 5"^ 'T " ' v N S 1 

47 Tt9 av 1,7} /JLei^COV ttVTOJV. O O LlJcrOV? 6iOft>9 TOV OtCt- 

Xoytoy/,01/ r?79 KapSias avr&v e r m\a^ofjievo<; Traio'iov ecrTrjaev 

48 avTO Trap eavT<p, KCLL elirev avrols <V O? av Be^rai TOVTO 

o^aTi [JLOV e/j,e $e%6Tai,, /cal 09 av ejue 
$e%Tai, TOV airoaTeiKavra ycte* o <yap [.UKpoTepos ev 

49 iraaiv vTrdp^ayv OVTOS CCTTLV /^eyas. ' 'A.7roKpi- 

eivrev 'ETTtcrTara, eiSa/Jbev Tiva ev TW ovof 

TO TraiSiov eVt T&> 

the approaching Passion. But 
et TO, (5ra is strongly in favour 
of taking Aoyous to mean ' words.' 
Adyovs must then refer to the saying 
which follows, and yap must be taken 
in an epexegetical sense : ' these 
words, namely.' Lk. omits to re- 
produce from Mk. the prophecy of 
the resurrection. 

45. Kal iyv 7rapaKKaX.vfj.fjAvov . . . 
o.LvOo)vra.i avro] Add. Luc., cf. xviii. 
34, xxiv. 1 6. 

tva i^rf] It is not necessary to give 
iVa a final force. As often in the later 
Greek it may merely denote conse- 
quence. Cf. Blass, 69. 3. 

epl TOV pij/Jt.aTO's TOVTOV] Add. Luc. 

46-48. In Mk. this conversation 
takes place in a house at Capernaum 
in consequence of a dispute which 
the disciples had held on the way. 
All this disappears in Lk. 

46. rb Tt<5 av eir) //.ei'a>i/ aiJTajv] 
Prob. which of them should be greatest 
in the future kingdom which was to 
be established. ju,et<W comparat. for 
superlative. So also /ztKpdre^os in 
v. 48. Blass, ii. 3. 

47. etSo>? TOV StaAoyto-/o,dv] Jesus 
knows intuitively. The same is im- 
plied, though not stated, in Mk. 
In Mk. Jesus questions the disciples 
as to their conversation, and the 

disciples in shame forbear to answer. 
Trap eaimo] For ev /uecra> avTuv Mk. 
Lk., with Mt., omits to say that 
Jesus embraced the child. 

48. There are two distinct thoughts 
here, (i) He who is lowliest is 
greatest (48 b). (This really answers 
the question of v. 46. The corre- 
sponding saying in Mk. precedes the 
incident of the child. The order 
has been changed by Lk.) (2) He 
who receives a little child in the 
name of Jesus receives Jesus, and 
he who receives Jesus receives him 
who sent Jesus (48 a). In this saying 
the child is not treated as a type 
of that childlike character which is 
necessary for entry into the kingdom 
(as in xviii. 17), but as a type of 
one of ' the least,' to whom the 
obligation of love is due. Cf . Mt. xxv. 
45. Wellhausen is probably right in 
detecting in Mk. a combination of 
two stories originally distinct in 
idea. But the juxtaposition is happy. 
The service of love, in which true 
greatness consists, is 'tested by its 
operation towards the most insig- 

49-50. It is most unlikely that 
exorcism in the name of Jesus would 
be practised in his life- time on earth. 
It may be inferred that the question 

So in the reply for /<a<9 3 ?}/zajj/, vTrtp 
(Mk.) Lk. substitutes Ka.6' 
vTrlp I'/zwi/. Perhaps Lk. 
wishes to avoid a formal contradic- 
tion with the converse saying in xi. 
23 (Q). The two sayings are not 
necessarily incompatible, xi. 23 is an 
appeal to the individual to abandon 
an attitude of neutrality. Here the 
saying is a principle to govern the 
conduct of the disciples towards those 
who stand outside the inner circle. 
Lk. omits from Mk. oi5Sets y<ip 


ov6fj.a.Ti [j.ov KOLI 


crov 6K/3d\\ovra Saiuovia, KOI eKco^voaev avrov ori OVK 
aKO\ovdel fjied r//JL(*)V. etrrev Be rrpos avrov IT/CTOV? MT? 50 
ica)\vere, 05 jap OVK ecrriv Ka&" v/j,wv vrrep V/AWV et 

had arisen in the community as to 
what attitude should be adopted 
towards those who, though not 
strictly members of the Church, suc- 
cessfully exorcised in the name of 
Jesus. Answer is given in the form 
of an incident that such exorcists 
are not to be hindered. Acts xix. 
13 records unsuccessful attempts of 
Jewish exorcists to drive out devils 
in the name of Jesus. 

49. OVK OLKoXovBei fj,e6' >//*<) i>] i.e. 
prob. ' he does not follow [thee] with 
us.' Mk. cm OVK r)KoXov0ct f]fj,iv (i.e. 
Jesus and the disciples). Lk. seems 
to dissociate Jesus and the disciples. 

THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM (ix. 5i-xix. 48) 

This is considerably the longest section of the Gospel. It purports to 
describe the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem with his disciples, which resulted 
in the crucifixion (ix. 51). That they were on the road to Jerusalem is stated 
atix. 53, xiii. 22, 33, xvii. n, xviii. 31. At xix. n he is near to Jerusalem; 
at xix. 41 he is within sight of the city, and at xix. 45 he enters the temple. 
It is implied at ix. 52 that he followed the route through Samaria. But at 
xviii. 35, xix. i he passes through Jericho. This is not consistent with a 
direct journey to Jerusalem through Samaria. 

It is, however, clear that very much of the contents of these chapters is 
not in place in a genuine journey. The thronging multitudes (xi. 29, xii. i, 
xiv. 25), the sabbath day preachings (xiii. 10), the offended Pharisees (xiv. i), 
the reports of Herod's hostility (xiii. 31), suggest the background of the 
Galilean ministry rather than a set journey through Samaria to Jerusalem. 
Again, the great parables of cc. xiv., xv., xvi. are loosely strung together and 
have no close connexion with the narrative. 

These discrepancies between the formal character and the actual contents 
of this section find an explanation when the Gospel is compared with the 
Marcan source. At ix. 51 the Marcan source, which Luke has followed closely 
for the greater part of his account of the Galilean ministry, is dropped. It is 
resumed again at xviii. 15, and from there onwards it again provides Luke 


with the main substance of his narrative for the rest of the journey to Jerusalem, 
except for two consecutive non-Marcan paragraphs xix. i-io (Zacchaeus), 
and 11-28 (parable of the pounds). But between ix. 51 and xviii. 15, that 
is to say for the greater part of what purports to be the narrative of the 
journey, the Marcan source is not used. The few parallels to Marcan material 
which these chapters contain (e.g. xi. 14 f., ' casting out devils by Beelzebub ' ; 
xiii. i8f., the parable of the mustard seed) are shewn by comparison with 
Matthew to be derived from a common non-Marcan source, presumably Q. 
A large proportion of the material is common to Matthew (Q). The rest is 
peculiar to Luke. The data seem to be well accounted for if we suppose that 
Luke wished to incorporate a large body of teaching, without disturbing 
the essential framework of Mark. Mark says (x. i) that Jesus journeyed to 
' the borders of Judaea,' but gives no particulars of the journey. Luke 
availed himself of this journey to provide a cadre for his additional material. 
The reading and the exact meaning of Mk. x. I are alike obscure (cf. Rawlinson 
ad loc.), but Mark seems to imply that Jesus journeyed through Peraea, 
and this is confirmed by the mention of his passing through Jericho (x. 46). 
Luke, on the other hand, has material (ix. 52 f .) which brings Jesus to Samaria. 
Moreover, he is probably desirous of including a Samaritan mission as pre- 
figuring the universal expansion of the Church (cf. John iv.). Accordingly 
he makes Jesus advance through Samaria. But the influence of the Marcan 
source still makes him bring Jesus to Jericho, although it was not on the 
route, to Jerusalem through Samaria. The explanation of the geographical 
obscurity is therefore literary. 1 

It is impossible to reach secure conclusions as to the number, nature, 
and extent of Luke's sources in this section. Streeter thinks that Q and L 
had already been combined to form a continuous narrative before they were 
worked into the Gospel as it stands. This central section was the principal 
part of ' Proto-Luke,' and ' Proto-Luke ' was '" practically a Gospel, 
giving a story parallel with Mark's, from the Preaching of John to the 
Passion and the Resurrection" (Four Gospels, p. 217). The greater part of 

1 For a very ingenious attempt to combine the statements of Mk. and Lk. 
with reference to the journey see Burkitt, The Gospel History, p. 9(5 n. Burkitt 
suggests that Peter (Mark's authority) travelled through Peraea, and that irtpav 
Tov'lopdavov (Mk. ix. i) is written from Peter's point of view, i.e. it means W. not 
E. of Jordan. Jesus really travelled, as Luke says, through Samaria, in order to 
avoid the territory of Antipas (which included Peraea). It may be questioned 
whether irtpav TOU 'lopddvov could have been understood in this sense, and the 
Lucan Gospel at any rate is too far removed from personal reminiscence to justify 
confidence in the order and accuracy of its itinerary. 


' Proto-Luke ' was therefore devoted to a narrative of the journey to 
Jerusalem. The theory of ' Proto-Luke ' does not help to account for the 
discrepancy between the contents and the narrative framework of this section. 
On the other hand it seems possible to account for this discrepancy if we 
assume that the element of continuous narrative has been imposed upon the 
material expressly in order to adapt it to its present position in the Gospel. 

Se ev T&> o-v^ffk^povcrOaL ra? rj/juepas TT)? ava- 5 * 

avrov Kal avros TO TrpocrutTrov ea-rtjpia-ev rou 
iropeveaOai et? \epovaa\rifjL, KOI airecrreikev d<yyeXou? irpo 5 2 
avTov. Kal iropevOzvTes el<rrjK6ov et? KCii/jLrjv 
a>9 erotyu/acrat avrw Kal OVK eSeijavro avTov, 5 3 

on TO irpo(T(t)'Trov avrov rjv TropevofMevov et? 

i$6vTS Se oi ./jbaQrjTal 'Ia/ca>/3o9 Kal 'Iwaz^? elirav Kvpie, 54 
eiirw^ev nyp KAT&BHN^I And roy oyp^Nof 

54 ava\<a<rai avrovs] add ws KO.I HXms eiroit]aev ACD al pier a b f q boli codd 
om tfBLS! 71 157 700* e vg syr.vt arm aegg Cyr 

51-56. The incident provides a ently not to preach, but to prepare 

practical illustration of the teaching quarters. Cf. xxii. 8. et Kio/j,rjv 

of non-resistance to evil (vi. 29). ^a/xape6Tcov] For the journeys of 

The narrative is peculiar to Luke. Galileans to Jerusalem through Sa- 

lt is to be set in juxtaposition to maritan territory, and the disturb- 

4 Regn. i. gf. Jesus will not act ances which were liable to occur, 

on the precedent set by Elijah, as of. Jos. Ant. xx. 6. I. 
his too hasty disciples desire. 53. TO TrpocrwTrov avrov fjv TTO- 

51. eyevero 8e ev ru> . . . Kal CUJTOS pevofjitvov] Another Semitism. Cf. 
. . . ecTT^ptcrcv] For the constr. cf. 2 Regn. xvii. II KO.I TO TT^OO-WTTOJ/ 
i. 8n. dvaX.yj/UL\f>e(DS, 'assumption.' crow Tropevo/j-evov kv /u.eo-o> avriov. 
The noun does not occur elsewhere 54. ot {mOijral J Ia/<o)ySos /<at 
in the Greek Bible (but cf. Test. Lev. 'Icoai/^s] The surname of the sons 
xviii. (codd.); Ps. Sol. iv. 20; Ass. of Zebedee, Boai/r/pyes, o kar-riv Ytot 
Mos. x. 12). For the verb cf. [Mk.] Bpovrr;?, is given Mk. iii. 17. It is 
xvi. 19; Ac. i. 2, u, 22; i Tim. not reproduced by Lk., but this 
iii. 1 6. Here the term perhaps con- incident gives an explanation of the 
notes the various stages by which name. 

Jesus passed from an earthly to a 54-55- The additions attested by 

heavenly existence (cf. e'oSo v. 31 Western authorities (see crit. note) 

supra) rather than the single incident are in all probability not part of 

of the Ascension into heaven (Kloster- the original text. The words o wos 

mann). TO Trpovwirov e'cmy/Ho-ei/] A rov dvOpioirov . . . d/\/\a crcoo-at have 

Semitism. Cf. Dan. xi. 17, 18; Jer. a close parallel in xix. 10. Rendel 

xxi. 10 vTTi'ipu<a TO TrpdcrwTrdi/ fj.ov Harris (T. and S. ii. i, p. 232) 

t T?/J/ TTo'Ati/ ; Ez. vi. 2, etc. traces the Western additions to Mar- 

52. aTreo-TeiAej/ d-yye\ov<s] Appar- cionite influence. Zahn, on the other 


5 5 avrovs ; ar panels Se eVert/iiT/crev auroft. Kal eiropevd'rjcrav 

^6 > r i t 

J ei9 erepav KW^V. 

57 Kal 7ropevo/j,ev(t)v avrwv ev ry o8c3 eiTrev rt9 vrpo9 avrov 

5 8 'AKO\ov0ij<TQ) croi OTTOV eav airep^r]. Kal eiTrev avrw [6] 

'I77CTOU9 At' a\co7re;e9 <f>&>Aeou9 eyova'Lv Kal ra irereiva rov 

* I /V 

ovpavov Kara<TKr)v<*>(T6L<;, o Se ut'o9 rov avOpwirov OVK e%ei irov 
o 8e el^rev 'EiTrlrpetyov p,oi Trpwrov a r jre\dovri Qa^rai rov 

55 eireTifJ.r)ffev auroty] add /cat enrev OVK oidare et ou Tri/eu/uaroy eore [i/^ctety] o [/yap] 
uioy row avdpwirov OVK rj\0e tywxas [avBpuirwv] a'TroXetrat (vel airoKTeivai) aXAa (rw<rat 
D (usque ad eore) al permu latt syr ( arm boh codd Cypr al S~ : om 
157 mult al 1 syr. sin aegg Bas Cyr 

hand, thinks that they are original and 
were later omitted from the motive of 
opposition to Marcionism. The story 
of Elijah is in any case in mind : 4 
Regn. i. 10 KCII Kare/3r] irvp IK rov 
ovpavov Kal Karefiayev avruv Kal 
rov<s Trevr^Kovra avrov. 

57-62. The sayings of Jesus to 
three would-be disciples occur here 
with great appropriateness at the 
beginning of the last journey to Jeru- 
salem, when to follow Jesus meant 
to follow him to death. The first two 
are found, with but slight variations, 
in Mt. viii. 19-22. The last is peculiar 
to Lk. In the last and perhaps 
also in the second we seem to have 
another reminiscence of the history 
of Elijah. See the narrative of the 
call of Elisha, 3 Regn. xix. 20 f. 

57-58. etTrev rts] In Mt. a 
scribe. This is an enthusiastic hearer 
who has not counted the cost of 
discipleship. The great saying has 
a striking parallel in Plut. Vit. Tib. 
Gracch. g. 828 c ra Orjpia 

rr>v 'IraAtaj/ veu.6u.eva KO, 
i ri 

^ei KGU KOiralov lo~riv avrit 
Kal Kardovo-L<s, rots 8' VTrep rr)s 
'IraAtas /xa^o/xevots KOU d7ro6vi']0~KOv- 
O~LV depos. Kal (jbcoros aAAov 8' 
/zerecTTti/, ciAA 3 ciotKot Kat 
u.era rtKvwv 


-yvi/atKtDi/. . . . There as here 
the security of the beasts is con- 
trasted with a particular case of 
human need. Bultmann (G.S.T. 
pp. 14, 58) thinks that the saying 
has been adapted from a pessimistic 
saying of Jewish proverbial philo- 
sophy concerning the life of man 
and given a new Christian reference : 
6 vibs rov dvOpwirov originally meant 
' man ' contrasted with the beasts. 
But as a generalization the contrast 
would be clearly untrue to life: 
many men have houses. 6 wos rov 
dvOpuirov here means Jesus. This 
usage is also found in Mt. viii. 20 
and therefore goes back to Q. 

59-60. etVei/ oe TT/OOS erepov] Jesus 
here takes the initiative. This has 
more point than the version in 
Mt. where the injunction to 
follow is a part of the reply of 
Jesus to the man's request. The 
burial of a father was to a Jew a 
primary duty of filial piety. Cf. 
Tobit iv. 3, vi. 15. But even this 
must yield to the higher claim of 
the kingdom of God. Cf. xiv. 26. 
u</>es TOVS i/ekpous] Best under- 
stood, in a transferred sense, of those 
who have not followed Jesus and 
therefore have not entered into life. 
"It would be unjust and unreason- 


irarepa /-tow. 

eiTrev Be avrw "Acjbe? roi>9 vetcpovs Qd-fyai 60 
TOL/9 eavr&v veicpovs, o~v Be aTrekOtov Bid<y<ye\\e rrjv ftao~i\eiav 
rov Oeov, elirev Be teal erepos A.KO\ov6r)o~w croi, /cvpie' 6 1 

r rrpwTov Be e 


ros 649 rov OLKOV /aov. 



? avrbv] o 'L^crofc QvBels 7n(3a\ci)V rrjv ^elpa 62 

CtpOTpOV KOI (3\e7T(OV 669 TO, OTTtCTft) evdero? .GTIV 

{Ba(ri\eiq rov deov. 

62 ouSets . . . OTTKTW] ouSets ets ra OTTKTW fi\eirtt)v KO.L eTrtjSaXXwj/ 
e?r aporpov D Clem Cypr 

%ei/)a aurou 

able to exalt the saying into a prin- 
ciple for all times and seasons. A 
man would have to leave his father 
unburied to join his regiment in war. 
To proclaim the kingdom of God 
was a still greater need. . . . The 
honouring of parents is so deeply 
rooted in the Jewish consciousness 
that these sayings of Jesus, though 
explicable and even justifiable, have 
a not wholly Jewish ring. . . . 
Moreover, it must be allowed that 
these somewhat un-Jewish sayings 
of Jesus produced un-Jewish results " 
(Montefiore) . Cf . Westermarck, Origin 

and Development of the Moral Ideas, 
vol. i. pp. 537, 616, quoted by M. 

60. crv Se direXOtov . . . rov 6eov\ 
Not in Mt., and prob. added by Lk. 

61-62. Unlike Elisha, this disciple 
is not to be allowed to bid farewell 
to his family. The incident is not 
in Mt. Lk. may have added it 
to provide a setting for a great 
saying. ei'^eros] i.e. fit to work 
for the kingdom of God. Cf. Hes. 
Works and Days 443 os 
ideidv K' avXaK 3 e 

j\\jj\v /) \ a 

aAA eTri epyc t o uv/j.ov e 


The Lord commissions a further body of seventy[-two] disciples to prepare 
the way for his advance. They return rejoicing at the success of their mission. 
Jesus thanks the Father for that he has revealed to the simple what is hidden 
from the wise, and pronounces a blessing upon his disciples. 

With the exception of v. I and vv. 17-20 the whole of this section has 
parallels in Mt. Lk. intends it to be read in connexion, but the arrange- 
ment is probably his own. In Mt., and perhaps in Q, the thanksgiving 
of Jesus (Mt. xi. 25-27 =Lk. x. 21-22) follows after the denunciations of 
the unrepentant cities (Mt. xi. 21-24 =Lk. x. 13-15), and both are separated 
from the charge to the disciples. 

The appointment of the seventy[-two] disciples is unknown to the other 
Gospels and to the rest of the N.T. The main content of the charge (vv, 2-11, 
1 6) is in Mt. ix. 37 f. conflated with Mk. vi. 7-13 and forms part of the charge 


to the Twelve. It is probable that the original in Q was a variant version of 
Mk. vi. 7-13 (to which it bears close resemblance), and that Lk., who has 
already reproduced Mk. vi. 7-13, has himself constructed the narrative setting 
to fit his second source. It is to be noted that Lk. xxii. 35 f. (ore uTrecrraAa 
lyzas are/3 f3a\Xavriov i<al 7rijpa<s KCU i>7ro(fy/zaT<ov . . .) looks back to x. 4 
(contrast Mk. vi. 8, Mt. x. 9 and Lk. viii. 3), and assumes that the injunction 
of x. 4 had been delivered to the Twelve, not to the seventy. Moreover the 
narrative introduction does not altogether fit the charge : Jesus is said to 
dispatch the disciples by twos to every city where he himself would come, 
like the messengers referred to above (v. 52) ; the charge, however, implies an 
independent ministry, without direct reference to the approach of Jesus in 
person. Again the return of the seventy in a body to Jesus does not easily 
harmonise with the conception that they had been sent out in advance by 
twos " to every city and place where he himself would come." 

The disciples are to travel and to live in extreme simplicity. They are 
commissioned to heal the sick and to proclaim the near approach of the 

The number ' seventy ' probably has a symbolic value as corresponding 
with the number of the nations of the earth in Gen. x. (70 in Heb., 72 in 
LXX), as the Twelve correspond to the number of the twelve tribes. 

An alternative but less probable suggestion is that the seventy[-two] are 
a counterpart to the seventy elders chosen to assist Moses. (Ex. xxiv. I ; 
Num. xi. 1 6. To the seventy elders add Eldad and Medad. Cf. Clem. Rec. 
i. 40.) 

X. I Mera 8e ravra aveBei^ev o tcvpio? erepovs 

[Svo] KOI aTrecneikev aurou? ava &vo [Svo] irpo TrpocrooTrov 

avrov et9 Ttaaav irokiv KOL TOTTOV ov tfjueXXev auro? epx e ~ 

2 crdau. e\e<yev Se TT/^O? avrovs 'O pey Oepicr/jbos TroXv?, ol 

Be epydrai, 0X170* SerjOyTe ovv rov Kvplov rov 

i e/35o/M7/coi>rci tfACL al pier b f q syr (vg.hl) boll Iren Tert Ens Cyr S~ : e/35o/*?7- 
KOVTO. 8vo BDMR a c e vg syr.vt arm sail Epiph Clem-Recogn Aug. 

i. tti/eSci^e:-] 'appointed.' So Ac. between 70 and 72 occurs in Gen. x. 

i. 24. Lucan only in N.T. Plut., (the number of the peoples) as be- 

Polyb. o Kvpios] Cf. vii. 13 n. tween Heb. and LXX; likewise in 

f38ofj.->)Kovr(i. 8vo] The reading of the traditional number of the Greek 

B D is to be preferred. There would translators of the O.T. Cf. Epiph. 

be a tendency to make 72 into a Exp. Fid., Migne PG. xlii. 780. 

round number. Similar confusion 2. o p.\v $e/}ioyzos . . . 

X. 8] 






- 3 
acrrd- 4 



ISov a < 7TO(7TeXXa> v/juas o>9 apvas ev 

ere /3aX\di>T{,ov, fir) irrjpav, JUL?} VTrorj^ara, /ca /jbiyeva Kara 
rrjv oBbv da-TrdcnjcrOe. et? rjv o av elcreXO^re oiKiav Trp&rov 5 
Xe'^yere Eilprjvr) TO> olvcw rovrw. teal eav crcei y 1^09 6 
r rrava r rrat]o~raL eir avrov ^ elprjvr) vfjiwv' el Se /irf'ye, 

jLtyei. ev avrrj Se ry oltcia /severe, ecrOovTes 7 
KOI Trivovre*} ra Trap avrwv, a^to? jap 6 epydrrj 1 ^ TOV fJuaOov 
avrov. /J,r) ^Gra^aivere e% olicias et? oliciav. ical e/9 rjv 8 
av TTO\LV elo-ep-fflcrde KCLI Be^cavrai vfjias, eV^tere ra Trapa- 

avrov] Practically identical in word- 
ing with Mt. ix. 37, 38, where, however, 
it is appropriately placed before the 
choice of the Twelve. 

3. || Mt. x. 16 (om. wrayere : for 


Lk. does not 

give the injunction which follows 
in Mt. : yiVecr^e ovv <poft//.ot 
u>5 ot oc/>eis /cat a/cepatot ws at 

4. The Twelve in Mk. vi. 8 are 
allowed crai/SaAta ( = UTroSiy/xara), a 
staff, and one x tT( ^- Shoes and 
a staff are forbidden in Mt. x. 10. 
In Lk. ix. 3 a staff is forbidden 
to the Twelve, and here shoes are for- 
bidden to the seventy. /^aAAavrtoi'] 
'A purse' in N.T. only here, xii. 
33, and xxii. 35. Mk. and Mt. 
assume that money is carried in the 
girdle. Cf. Schol. to Aristoph. Ran. 
784 (Dindorf, Aristoph. iv. pt. 2, 
p. 98) /itaAai'Tti/To/zoi'j : rots ra f3a- 
Aai/rta re/zvowt, a kv rats 
<j)epovo~LV av 

. . . ao-ao-Tyo"$e] Because 
the minds of the missionaries must 
be fixed on their purpose. Cf. 4 
Regn. iv. 29. 

5-12. The material is found in 
Mt. x. in briefer form and somewhat 
differently arranged. Cf. Mt. x. n- 
13, lob, 7, 14-15. 

7. The missionaries arc entitled to 

ordinary hospitality, on the principle 
that ' the labourer is worthy of his 
hire.' Mt. states the principle, 
but in a less appropriate place, and 
does not mention the right to hos- 
pitality. It seems probable that the 
source is more closely followed in 
Lk., and that it has been com- 
pressed and rearranged by Mt. 
atos -yap . . . /j,icr6ov avrov} For 
fj.L(rOov Mt. gives T/IO^T)?. The 
saying is quoted in its Lucan form 
in i Tim. v. 18. This is no doubt 
the saying to which Paul alludes, 

I Cor. ix. 7, 14 Ol'TOJS KCU O KiyjlOS 

Stera^ei/ TCHS TO euayye/Xiov /<ar- 
ayyeAAoncrtv IK rov ei'ayyeAi'ov ffiv. 
8. ca-OUre TO, 7rapaT6^eyu,ej'a lyzti'] 
Cf. ar^ovres /cat TTtVoi'res TU, Trap' 
above. There is strikin re- 

semblance in language to i Cor. 
x. 27 TroV TO TrupaTi^e/iei'Oi' Vfur 
ecr^tere, //.rySei' (ivaKptvoi'res 8ta riyi' 
(rvi'et'Sr/rru', where, however, the 
point is that the Christian is not 
to ask questions as to whether the 
meat which is put before him is 
clean or unclean according to the 
Mosaic Law. That idea is not to 
be read into this passage, but it is 
not unlikety that St. Paul's language 
is an echo of this injunction, adapted 
to the conditions of the Gentile 



9 nOefjieva vfuv, real Oepairevere rovs ev avrrj aaOevels, KCLI 

IO \e<yere avTot? "H<yy/eez/ e<' i/ytta? ?; /3acr(,\ela rov Oeov. el? 

rfv S' av TroXiv elcreXO'rjre KCU /j,r) Se%(0VTai v/jia$, e^eX^oz/re? 

I I et? Ta? TrXare/a? avrij<; enrare Kat rof /covioprbv rbv 

KoXkyOevTa TJ/JLLV etc TT}? TroXew? u//,wz> et? TOL;? TroSa? aTroaacr- 

ao[i,e6a V/JLLV TrX?)^ roOro jLVcoo-Kere OTL tfyyiKev rj fBa(Ti\eia 

I 2 TOI) ^eoO. \eya) vfuv on SoSo//,ot9 ez/ T^ rjfj^epa eiceivr) dveic- 

13 Torepov earat ?} Tj7 vroXei eice'ivr). Ovau <roi, Xopa^eiv oval 
croi, BydcraiSd' OTL el ev Tvpw KCU ^i8a)VL e^ev^driorav at 
Svvd/Jieis al <yevbp,evcn, ev V/JLLV, iruXai av ev (TCLKKW teal a-TroSw 

1 4 KaOrj^evoL ^erevorja-av. ir\rjv Tvpw Kal 2i,S5)vi aveKrorepov 

1 5 earai ev rf) Kpicrei, rj V/JLLV. Kal crv, Katyapvaov/j,, /JLTJ ewe 

1 6 OYRANOY YTweHcy; ecac TOY <i'AoY K^T&BHChi. 'O dicovwv VJJLWV 

9. ec/) 5 V 5 ?] Not in Mt. With 
the addition of ec/>' vyu,as the saying 
suggests that the kingdom may be 
thought of as already present, to be 
accepted or rejected, among those to 
whom it is preached. 


similar injunction Mk. vi. 1 1 ( = ix. 5 
supra) and Mt. x. 14. Cf. Ac. xiii. 51. 

aTTo/xarrcretv] A good Greek word. 
Here only in N.T. eK/mo-wcii/ occurs 
vii. 38, q.v. 

13-15. The fate of the city which 
shall disobey the call of the mis- 
sionaries leads Jesus to pronounce 
the doom of the Galilean cities which 
have already failed to repent in spite 
of the wonders which they have wit- 
nessed. But the connexion is not 
good, and is probably due to the 
editing either of the evangelist or 
his source. The same verses are 
found as a separate section in Mt. 
xi. 20-24 with a concluding verse 
which affirms that the fate of Caper- 
naum shall be worse than that of 
Sodom. Cf. supra v. i2 = Mt. x..i5 
(where, however, Gomorra is coupled 
with Sodom). The verses are perhaps 
" the pronouncement of a Christian 

prophet casting a retrospective glance 
at the work of Jesus in Galilee" (Loisy). 

13. Xopdfciv] Unknown to the 
Gospels apart from this and the 
parallel verse in Mt. a striking 
illustration of the fragmentary char- 
acter of the narratives embodied in 
the Gospels. The modern Kerdzeh 
is about an hour's distance from 
Tell Hum and nearly due north. 
Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 24. 

14. T-u/oo) /cat 2iSaj/t] The per- 
spective is that of an inhabitant of 
Palestine. Tyre and Sidon represent 
the heathen world. 

15. Is. xiv. 13-15 crv Se (i.e. the 
king of Babylon) etrras ry Siavoly 
(rov Ets TOV ovpavuv dvajS'/jcrofjMi 

\ 5 '/ <> /) / 

. . . vvv oe t<s (J-oi/v Karap7ja"rj. 

1 6. Jesus addresses the mission- 
aries again. The messengers pro- 
claim what Jesus has put into their 
mouths, and Jesus proclaims what 
he who sent him has enjoined. The 
message is one and it is God's. 
The charge in Mt. similarly con- 
cludes : 6 fiex^ 6 " ? *V " ? e/Ae Several, 
/cat o 6fj.e Se^Oyuevos Several TOV 
aTrorrret/Xai'Ta //.e, followed by two 
further verses of exposition. 


efiov dtcovei, Kal o dOerwv v/jbas e'yu-e dOerel' o Be cue dOerwv 
dOerel rov drroareL\avrd /u-e. 'Tireo-rpe-^rav Be oi 17 

>ra [Svo] fjierd ^apd^ \e<yovres K.vpt,e, Kai ra 
v7rordcro~eraL r^plv ev ru> ovo^ari arov. elrrev Be 1 8 
avroi? 'ROewpovv rov ^aravdv &>9 dcrrparrrjv eK rov 
ovpavov irecrovra. IBov BeBwrca vfuv rrjv e^ovcriav rov IQ 
n<vreTN err<\NO) 6<t>ecoN Kai crKopTruwv, Kai erri rracrav rrjv 
Bvvajjiiv rov e^Opov, Kal ovBev v/juds ov //-^ dBiKijcrei. TT^V 2O 
ev rovra) pr) ^aipere on rd rrvevp,ara vplv vrrordacreraL, 
Be on rd ovo^ara vuwv ewyeypaTrrai ev rots ovpa- 

'EiV avrrj rrj wpa r/<ya\,\ida'aro rw TrvevfjiarL 2 I 

17 epSofj-rjKovTa] add 8vo BD latt syr.sin ? syr.hl-mg arm sah. vide ad v. I 

all the powers of evil. The language 
is coloured by Ps. xci. But Jesus 
directs their thoughts away from 
their sensational successes. The real 
ground for joy is that they are 
enrolled in God's book as citizens of 
the kingdom, which, with Satan's 
downfall, is shortly to be revealed. 
The idea of God's book is found in 
O.T., Ex. xxxii. 32; Is. iv. 3. See 
also Enoch xlvii. 3,andesp. Dan. xii. i. 
21-22. These words with insignifi- 
cant variations are also found in Mt. 
xi. 25-27 and therefore derive from 
a common source (Q). In Mt. 
they are followed by the invitation 
' Come unto me all ye that labour 
. . . ' Did the invitation follow 
the two preceding verses in Q as 
in Mt. ? If so, it is remarkable 
that Lk., who cared much for the 
weary and heavy-laden, should omit 
it. There is a study of these verses 
in Norden, Agnosias Theos, pp. 277 f. 
Nordcn holds that the integral text 
is preserved in Mt. The three 
stanzas (Mt. xi. 25-26; 27; 28-29), 
each consisting of four lines, must go 
together. They reproduce a type of 
religious /)7ytri containing the three 
elements of (i) revelation, (2) thanks- 

17. {iTrecrT/ae^a i/] Similarly the 
return of the Twelve after their 
mission is narrated (ix. io = Mk. vi. 
30). The disciples are filled with 
a joyful astonishment at their power 
over theforcesof evil. viroTaar<reorOaL\ 
Used of the subjection of spirits I Cor. 
xiv. 32. Great Paris Mag. Pap. 3080 
i<al virorayrjcrtTat croi TTUI/ Tryeiyza 
/cat Sai/zoi/iov OTTOIOV lav fjv (Deiss- 
mann, Light from the Ancient East, 
E.T., 1927, p. 258). 

1 8. TOV 2arai/ar] Here as else- 
where in N.T. Satan is head of the 
powers of evil. In Rev. xii. we hear 
of his being defeated and cast out of 
heaven by Michael and his hosts. 
A similar idea lies behind this saying. 
The consciousness that he has already 
broken the power of the evil spirits, 
with Satan at their head, is implied 
here as in xi. 17 f. = Mk. iii. 23 f. 
An ecstatic vision on the part of 
Jesus is suggested, but it is not clear 
when we are to understand it to have 
taken place perhaps during the ab- 
sence of the seventy. eOaftpuvi' (Impf .) 
prob. implies a continued experience. 

19-20. The defeat of Satan ex- 
plains the success of the disciples. 
Jesus has given them authority over 


TO> a<yiq) Ka eirev oyu/oofyo/i-at O~OL, Trrep Kvpie rov 

ovpavov Kal TV)? 7%, OTL aTreKpvfyas ravra a.7rb <ro$wv KOL 

avveT&v, Kal aireKakv^ra^ avra VTJTTLOL^' vai, o iraTrjp, OTL 

22 o#ra>9 ev&oKia eyeveTo efj,7rpo<r6ev crov. Hdvra yu-ot TrapeBodrj 

giving for the revelation, (3) invitation to babes things hidden from the wise 

to share in the revelation. This and prudent.' In thought and in 

common type underlies the last language this passage is strikingly 

chapter of Ecclus., Corp. Herm. i. similar to I Cor. i. 2 1 eTretS?) yap ev rfj 

fin., and this logion in the Gospels. vo$>ia rov deov OVK eyi/co 6 KoV/xos 

Distinctive of the Christian treatment Sia TYJS cro^ta? rov Oeov, evooKijcrev 

of the theme is the idea that the 6 6eo<s 8ta r/ys /zw/otas rov Kypvy- 

revelation is imparted to the simple //.arcs crwcrat rov<s 7ucrrevovra<s. But 

and childlike. The sayings are to the use of vijirtoL here is quite different 

be ascribed to an early Christian from the Pauline use. In Paul vr'jTrioi 

' prophet.' Though not an avTtxjxwta is used for immature believers ( i Cor. 

of the Lord, they are true to the iii. i ), not, as here, for those who are 

* idea ' of his teaching and character, unsophisticated. 
Norden finds himself unable to ravra] The content of ravra is left 

account for Luke's omission of Mt. vague, but may be interpreted as the 

xi. 28-29. It may be suggested that knowledge of God's will. Perhaps in 

Lk. modified the source with a view some earlier setting the reference of 

to the setting in which he has placed ravra was more clearly defined. 
it, i.e. the occasion of the return of efjnrpoo-Oev CTOD] A Semitic peri- 

the seventy disciples. A general invi- phrasis to avoid a too familiar manner 

tation to the weary and heavy-laden in speaking of the Divine purpose. 
would be less appropriate here than 22. irdvra uoi TrapeSoOrj] The 

vv. 23-24, which Lk. probably trans- meaning is not certain. Some inter- 

ferred from another context in Q pret ' all power has been committed 

( = Mt. xiii. 16,17): Jesus 'privately' to me (as Messiah) by my Father.' 

addresses the disciples and pronounces Cf. Mt. xxviii. 18 iSoOi] pot Tracra 

them blessed because they actually kov<ria. But the thought of Mes- 

behold the fulfilment of what prophets sianic authority does not fit closely 

and kings had looked for. with the context. Wellh., Norden, 

21. The words of introd. are Harnack interpret of the Trapdooons 

characteristically Lucan : lv uvrfj of religious doctrine, ' all that I 

ry oj/)a, cf. ii. 38, vii. 21, xii. 12, teach has been delivered to me 

xiii. 3 1, xx. 19, xxiv. 33 ; Ac. xvi. 18, directly from my Father.' Jesus 

xxii. 13. i]ya\\iao-aro ro> irv. r. ay.] has not, like the scribes, received a 

Cf. i. 47. Mt. xi. 25 begins: Ii/ e/cetV(o TrapaSocris from men. Therefore it 

T(o /cat/3^5 (likewise characteristic of is that he teaches with authority and 

Mt.) d7roKpi6el<s 6 3 I?yo-o{)s enrei/. not as the scribes. The scribes are 

e^o/aoAoyov/Wcroi] 'I thank thee.' . 'the wise and prudent' from whom 

The word is freq. in this sense his wisdom .has been hidden. This 

in the Greek Psalter for Heb. ^ mil. gives a good sense, but perhaps 

o.7rei<pv^a<s . . . Kal aTre/caAi^as] presses unduly and somewhat prosaic- 

The paratactic construction echoes ally the associations of irapeSoOy, 

Semitic idiom. The emphasis falls which need not mean more than 

s: 'God has revealed 'committed.' The emphatic words 


VTTO rov Trarpo? JJLOV, KOI ovSels yivctxr/eei, rt? ecmv o vlos el 
fj,rj 6 Trarrip, KOL Tt<? ecrriv 6 irarrjp el 

6 vios Kal 

w av 

are VTTO TOV ira.Tp6<s p-ov, 'all that 
has been committed to me comes 
from my Father.' The concluding 
prayer in Corp. Herm. i. (Poimandres) 
gives a close parallel to TrapeSoOt] : 
eu/Xoy^ros ei Trdrep' 6 cros ai/$/au>7ros 
crot /3ovAercu, /ca0u>s 
aura) TT)V Tracrav l^ovcrtav. 
rts ICTTIV 6 wos] Mt. 
rot/ vlov. The indirect 
question is prob. a stylistic alteration 
by Luke. The affirmation of the 
mutual knowledge of Father and Son 
has no parallel elsewhere in the 
synoptic Gospels. The absolute use 
of the term 6 mos is found elsewhere 
in the synoptic traditions only in 
Mk. xiii. 32. On the other hand the 
thought and the language is in line 
with St. John's Gospel; of. esp. x. 
15 KaOws ytj/tocrKet pe 6 Trarrjp Kctyu> 
yivajcrKa) rov Trarepa. There is a 
general tendency among recent editors 
to hear in these words as they stand 
echoes of the thought of the early 
Church about its Lord and his 
relations with the Father, rather 
than echoes of actual words of Jesus. 
A difference is to be noted from the 
preceding verse : there it is the 
Father who 'reveals,' here the Son 
'reveals' the Father. That in fact 
'the Son' had revealed the Father 
was clear to the early believers. It 
is a further question whether an 
explicit claim to be, as the Son, sole 
revealer of the Father is probable 
on the lips of Jesus. There is some 
difficulty in interpreting the con- 
nexion of thought. The second 
clause 'no one knows who is the 
Son but the Father' seems to 
interrupt the sequence between the 
first and the two last clauses. The 
revelation of the Father to the Son 
explains how no one, knows the 

Father except the Son and those to 
whom the Son wills to reveal him, 
but that no one except the Father 
knows the Son breaks that line of 
thought. In many early quotations 
(reviewed in detail by Harnack, Say- 
ings of Jesus, Excursus i.) the two 
clauses are cited in inverse order. 
This inversion of order is not attested 
by any MS. authority (the only 
important MS. variant is that of a 
who omits the clause concerning the 
knowledge of the Son by the Father), 
but Harnack thinks that the inverted 
order, with the reading eyvto for 
ytvuHTKet (see below), gives an earlier 
form of text than that attested by 
the MSS. It is, however, clear that 
with this inversion we are left with 
an impossible connexion between the 
two last clauses ; it is hardly possible 
to say 'no one knows who the Son 
is except the Father and he to whom 
the Son wills to reveal him.' The 
Son is not his own revealer. Har- 
nack thus holds that originally in 
Lk. (and therefore in Q) the words 
KCU rts ecrTti' o vibs i fir) o TraT'ijp 
were wanting. The residual text 
may then be regarded as an authentic 
saying. Wellh. also thinks it prob- 
able that the words concerning the 
Father's knowledge of the Son are 
an ancient interpolation. But it is 
precarious to desert the evidence of 
the MSS. The text as it stands 
gives a good sense, though there is 
certainly a hiatus in the thought 
between the first two clauses. It 
seems not unlikely that this hiatus 
was responsible for the inversion of 
order (conscious or unconscious) in 
so many early quotations. The read- 
ing e'yj/co for yti'too-Kei found in many 
early quotations (cf. Harnack I.e.) 
and in a 6 (novit), and adopted by 





i. Kal o-Tpafyeis TT/OO? rot/9 

KCUT i&'iav eiTrev ^AaKapioi ol o<0aX/u,ot ol /3Xe- 
24 Trofre? a ySXeVere. \e^oy jap vfilv on, TroXXol 7rpo<pr]Tcu KCU 
f)6e\ri<rav ISelv a vfjbeis /^XeTrere KOI OVK elSav, teal 
a a/covere KOL OVK rjKova-av. 

24 KCU a.Kovffa.1 . . . OVK yKovffav om ail 

some heretics- "qui peritiores apostolis 
volunt esse" (Iren. iv. xi. i) in an 
anti-Judaic sense, may have arisen 
from assimilation to the aorist -rrap- 
cS6&ij. Harnack on the other hand 
suggests that e'yi'co was supplanted 
by yivokr/cei because (5 o.v u.TroKa\vij/y 
seemed to demand the present tense 
in the preceding verb. 

Norden holds fast to the four 
clauses. Not only is the full text 
attested by textual evidence, but 
the four clauses are required to 
balance the four clauses in the pre- 
ceding verse. He recognizes that 
the second clause (b) interrupts the 
connexion between the first (a) and 
the third (c). The real force of (b), 
however, is that it provides the pre- 
supposition of (c) : the Son knows, 
and can therefore reveal, the Father, 
but only because he is himself first 
known of the Father. On this inter- 
pretation, the thought is the same as 
that of Gal. iv. g vvv Se 



O 0eov, 

i Cor. viii. 3, xiii. 12. Cf. also Corp. 
Herm. x. 15. The knowledge of man by 
God is antecedent to the knowledge 
of God by man. But the language, 
as Bousset points out, is against this. 
We require on this view, not 'no 
one knows the Son but the Father,' 
but ' the Father knows (i.e. foreknows, 
chooses) no one but the Son.' It is 
best to take the text as it stands 
and to interpret it of the mutual 
understanding between the Father 
and the Son, as often in St. John. 

23-24. The connexion of the 
verses here, though probably not 
original, is better than in Mt. xiii. 
16-17 where they are interpolated 
between the parable of the sower 
and its interpretation. 

24. /cat /3ao-tA.ets] Mt. KOL SI/COUCH, 
which is less forcible. Mt. has 
a preference for StKcuoo-wry. The 
saying implies that the hopes and 
anticipations of the old dispensa- 
tion are already finding their fulfil- 
ment in the work of Jesus on earth. 


This is one of a small group of stories peculiar to Luke which give practical 
illustrations of types of conduct which are enjoined or reproved. Other such 
stories are 'The Rich Fool' (xii. 16-21) and ' Dives and Lazarus' (xvi. 19-31). 
A closer parallel to this story is ' The Pharisee and the Publican ' (xviii. 9-14) 
which Jiilicher thinks may originally have formed a pair with ' The Good 
Samaritan.' ' The Rich Fool ' and ' The Pharisee and the Publican ' are 
called by Luke ' parables.' But these stories are not parables in the usual 
sense of that word in the Gospels. The usual parable describes some 
natural process or some happening in social life which presents an analogy 
to a spiritual truth. The point of the parable lies in the analogy, not in 


the story itself. Indeed the narrator may find analogies to spiritual truths 
in behaviour or motives which, in themselves, are not, and are not regarded 
.as, commendable; e.g. the parables of the unjust judge, the importunate 
friend, the unjust steward. In the case, however, of these illustrative 
stories, the story itself conveys its moral. The point of the present story 
lies in the beneficence of one of the schismatic Samaritans contrasted with 
the callous indifference of the representatives of official Judaism. It would 
thus be especially congenial to Luke, who loves to strike the universalistic note. 

Whence Luke derived this and the other stories remains quite uncertain. 
There are indications that the present setting is secondary. The introductory 
dialogue with the lawyer is closely similar to Mk. xii. 28-34 an d i s either 
modelled upon that passage or else reproduces some parallel version. That 
Luke regarded it as a doublet of Mk. xii. 28 f. is shewn by his omission of 
that passage at xx. 40. The connexion with the parable is artificial, for the 
parable is not strictly an answer to the scribe's question. The scribe asks for 
a definition of what is meant by ' neighbour,' when it is said that a man 
must love his neighbour as himself. In the quotation from the law and in 
the scribe's question, the neighbour is mentioned as the proper object of 
benevolent action. The parable, it is true, gives by implication an answer to 
the question, viz. your neighbour is anyone in need with whom you are 
thrown into contact, but the word neighbour is now used in a quite different 
sense, viz. to denote the person who himself shews benevolence or ' neighbour- 
liness ' to others. 

Halevy (Revue des Etudes juives, iv., 1882, pp. 249-255) argues that it is 
unlikely that Jesus would single out a Samaritan as a type of benevolent 
behaviour (he compares Mt. x. 5), and thinks the picture of a Samaritan on 
the road between Jerusalem and Jericho and on terms of intimacy with an 
innkeeper incompatible with the relations of Jews and Samaritans in Palestine 
in the period before the Jewish War. He thinks that the parable as spoken 
by Jesus may have contrasted ' Israelite ' (in the sense of ' layman ' as 
often in Rabbinic) with the priest and Levite, and that the conversion of the 
layman into a Samaritan may be ascribed to the universalism of Luke. 
Hale vy's conjecture is favourably regarded by Montefiore, but not by Abrahams 
(Studies, 2nd Series, No. vii.). 

It is likely that the story has had a history, and we should probably 
think of more stages than one before the tale received the artistic symmetry 
of its present form. The idiomatic vocabulary and artistic finish of 
verses 30-35 (see notes) seem to point to the present form of the story 


having been actually composed in the language in which we now read it. 
Halevy's conjecture that the Samaritan nationality of the good man is not 
an original feature of the tale might be supported by the story of the ten 
lepers (c. xvii.), where the motif of a grateful Samaritan who puts Jews to 
shame seems to have been superimposed upon an earlier story of healing. 

25 Kat IBov vo/jiiKos Tt? dvearr) eKTreupd^wv avTov Xe<y&>z/ 
AiSttcr/eaXe, rl Troirjcras forjv alcoviov K\rjpovofMijcr(o ; o Be 

26 eiirev irpos avTOV Ez/ TW vop,<p ri yeypaTrrat, ; TTW? dva- 

27 ywcoaKeis ; 6 Be diroKpiOel^ elirev 'ApMTHceic KY'RION TON GGO'N 
coy el O'AHC K&pA(&c coy K&I &N oAy T yyxtf coy KAI GN 6'Atf T 
icxyi coy K&I EN 6'Ay T AIANOI^ coy, KOI TON nAncioN coy cbc 

. elirev Be avrw 'Op^w? direKpiO^- TOYTO nofei KAI 
f O Be 6e\wv BiKaLwcrai, eavrov eiTrev 7T/3o<? TOV 'Irjcrovv 
30 Kai Tt9 ecrriv f^ov ir\r](Tiov ; V7ro\,a(3a)v 6 lr)<rov<; elirev 


*} Q 


25. vofjiiKos] Six or seven times 
in Lk. Never in Mk. The only 
occurrence in Mt. is xxii. 35 (the 
parallel to Mk. xii. 28 f. closely 
answering to this passage), but there 
it is probably not the original reading. 
See Streeter, p. 320. The word is 
found not infreq. in papyri and inscrr. 
for ' a lawyer.' See M.M. s.v. The 
Gentile Luke tends to substitute it 
for the Jewish y/aa/xymTeus. 

eK7rei/Dtt<W airrof] So also in Mt. 
xxii. 35. But in Mk. xii. 28 the 
scribe speaks in all good faith. 
In Mt. and Mk. the scribe asks 
Jesus direct which is the first com- 
mandment in the law. In Lk. the 
reference to the law is subordinate to 
a more general question which would 
appeal more readily to readers who 
were not themselves under the law. 
Here and throughout the paragraph 
the dialogue in Lk. is artificial. 

27. The combination of Deut. vi. 
4 and Lev. xix. 18 is not here 
presented, as in Mk., as originating 
with Jesus, but is accepted by Jesus 
from the mouth of the scribe. The 

combination of the two commands 
to love God and to love your neighbour 
is already present in Test. XII. Pair., 
Issachar v. 2, vii. 5, Dan v. 3. 

28. TOVTO iroiei KUI t 7 / "??] The 
words look back to the scribe's 
question, v. 25. But there is perhaps 
also a reminiscence of Lev. xviii. 5 
(cf. Gal. iii. 12). 

29. SiKouuicrai eai'roi/] To justify 
his question. The apparently simple 
answer which Jesus has elicited 
requires interpretation before it can 
be acted upon. Abrahams and 
Montefiore show clearly that many 
Jewish precedents can be found for 
the principle of universal benevolence. 
But " the desire for sharp definition 
is genuinely rabbinic " (J. Weiss). 

30. VTTO \af3iov] ' answering him.' 
Class. In Bible here, above twenty 
times in Job, and twicein Daniel, iii. 9, 
95 (28). UTTO 'lepdwuAyyyu,] The road 
from Jerusalem to Jericho was 
' rocky and deserted ' (Jos. B.J. iv. 
viii. 3). According to Jerome (on 
Jer. iii. 2) the road was infested with 
Arab robbers down to his own day. 


Be 3 


\r)crrals TrepieTrecrev, oi Kal eKBvaavres avrov real 
eiriOevres airr)\6ov afyevres rj/judavf}. Kara crv^/KVpiav 

r / //-) r ' i 11 f 5, / \ 15. \ ?\ 

lepevs Tt? Karepaivev lev] rrj ooa> eKeivrj, Kai tbcov avrov 

avriTrap-fj^dev o/Weo? Be /cal Aeveirv]<? Kara rov rorrov e\6a)v 32 
Kal lBa)v avmrapriXOev. ^a^apeir^ Be 779 oBevwv r)\6ev 33 

Kal rrpo(re\6(J3V /car- 34 
e\aiov Kal oivov, em- 
iBiov Krrjvos tfyayev avrov et? 

Kal errl rrjv avpiov 3 5 




ra rpav/j,ara avrov 


e avrov err 



eK/3a\(iov Bvo Srjvdpia 




avrov, Kal ori av Trpocrbarravrjays eya) eV 


GOL. r/9 rovrcov rwv rpiwv 36 

/ze aTroBcoa-o) 

7r\rj(riov BoKel aoi yeyovevat rov ei^rreaovro^ et? TOI;? 
6 Be elirev f O TTOAT/O-O,? TO eXeo? yaer' avrov. elrrev Be avrw 37 
[o] 'J rjaovs Ylopevov Kal o~v iroiei 

31 om ei/ B r 

ot Kat] 'who, as you would 
expect.' This idiomatic relative, the 
frequent participial constructions, and 
the distinctive vocabulary leave the 
impression that the story as it stands 
is not written in translation Greek. 

K8vfravre^] The robbers first 
possess themselves of the valuable 
loot of the traveller's clothes, and 
then proceed to mishandle him, lest 
he cause them trouble. 

31. Kara crvyKvpiav] Here only in 
N.T. The noun is quoted twice 
from Hippocrates (Hobart, 30), where 
it takes the place of the commoner 
<rwyKvprj(rt<s } (rvyKi>prjfj,a. 

rts] Returning perhaps to 

37 om o B 

on Mt. vi. 17, vol. i. p. 428. 2). 
eVi/^yScuras] Peculiar to Lk. in N.T. 
Cf. xix. 35, Ac. xxiii. 24. Class, and 

Phryn. cclxxvi. Trav- 
ol 8ia rov ^ Aeyovres 
d/zaprdvoDtrr Stcc yap rou A: 
Aeyetv TravBoKeiov i<al Trai'So/cevs 
TravSoxevrpia. X spells with a K here. 
35. ei/ raJ kiravep^crOai /^e] Kot 
'after my return,' which would be 
iv TM liraveXOtiv /xe (cf. xix. 15 and 
iii. 21), but 'on my way back.' 
Lk. appears regularly to respect the 
distinction between present and 
aorist in this construction. Iv TM c. 
infin. of time echoes Hebraic idiom. 

his home after fulfilling the duties of Cf. Blass, 71. 7, to which Moulton 
his course in the Temple, avmrap- (citing Dr. E. A. Abbott), Proleg. 2 
7/A6W] A rare compound. ' Passed p. 249, assents. The sentence as a 
by on the other side.' whole is very well articulated. Jn 

33. 2a/>ia/jeiTr;s] A lay man, and a spite of the Hebraic flavour, it does 
schismatic at that. not read like translation Greek. 

34. eTTt^eoii/ zXaiov iu olvoii} The compound 7rpo(rStt7rai'<7i' here 
Attested as a common remedy both only in N.T. ; eTrui'epxeirOui only 
among Greeks (T]\Qophr.Jlist. Plant. hero and xix. 15. Class. LXX. 

ix. ii. 1) and Jews (see relf. in S.B. > 37. o Trouyo-as KT/\..] The scribe 


38 'Ez> Be rw TropevecrQat, avrovs avrbs elo"fj\dev et9 K.u>iyr)v 
rivd' ryvvr) Be rt? ovo^an ^/IdpOa VTreBe^aro avrov et? rrjv 

39 oliclav. KOI rfjBe r)V dBe\(j)r} Ka\ov/u,evr] l&apidfjb, [^] KCU 
TrapaKa6e(r6elcra Tr/ao? TOV? Tro&a? rov Kvpiov rjKovev rov 

40 \oyov avrov. rj Be Mdp6a Trepuea'Traro Trepl TroXX^y Bia- 
Koviav eTricrracra Be elirev Kvpie, ov /j,e\ei croi, on Y] dBeXcfrrf 
fjuov fjiovrjv fjie Kare\ei7rev BiaKovelv ; CLTTOV ovv avry 'iva 

41 jjboi a-vvavriKd^raL. aTTOKpiOel^ Be elirev avrfj 6 


42 Be eanv 

a ^7 ez/o?- M.apLa/JL yap rrjv djadijv 

39 om 77 ^*B 3 LS 41 iJ.epifj.vas /cat 0opv(3afa irepi ?roXAa] Bopvfiaty D : om 

a b e syr.sin Amb dKiyuv 5e etrriv XP eia "n fos] pap 3 ^BC 2 L I 33 579 

syr.hl-mg boh aeth Or ^ Bas : oXiyw*' 8e eeri XP M 3^ boli cod arm pal : evos 6e eari 
Xpeta AC al pier f q vg syrr( S~ : om D a b c e syr.sin Amb 
42 70,/j] J<BL I 69 157 : 5e AC al pier f q ~ : om D a b c e vg syr.vt arm Amb 

avoids the hated name of Samaritan. 
But his answer also throws into 
relief the centre and point of the 
story and leads easily to the final 
word of Jesus. 

38-42. This incident is peculiar to 
Luke. The two sisters Martha and 
Mary appear here only in the 
synoptic Gospels. Ace. to John xi. i 
Mary was she who anointed the 
Lord at supper before his Passion, 
and the home of the sisters with 
their brother Lazarus was at Bethany. 
Luke is quite vague as to locality, 
Kttjp/i' TLvd v. 38, but the Lord 
cannot be thought of as being now 
near to Jerusalem. The characters 
of the two sisters as represented in 
John are true to the picture in the 
present story. 

39. TrapaKaOea-Otiara] i.e. as a 
pupil. Mary fulfils the ideal of St. 
Paul, I Cor. vii. 35 eiVapeS/Joi/ -no 
Kvpup drrepionrdcrTdJ?. Martha, like 
the married woman in St. Paul, 
(jLepL/Avy. TO, TOV Kooyxoi; (ib. v. 34). 

40. Trepl 7roAA?)i/ 8ta/<ovtav] Cf. 
Jo. xii. 2 Ktti ?) Ma/o$a 

41-42. The general sense of these 
verses ie, clear. Martha's distraction 
is gently reproved ; Mary in choosing 
to sit and listen has chosen well and 
is not to be robbed of her choice. 
But the reading is very uncertain. 
If the reading of D lat.vt syr.sin 
may be taken as original we have a 
clear sense, and the other readings 
may be accounted for as interpre- 
tative glosses, or a combination of 
glosses. The objection to this is 
that we must assume that in this 
case the great Uncials NB give a 
very early conflation of readings 
which have been better preserved in 
other lines of transmission. If we 
read evos Se ecrrt X/ )et ' a with AC 
syr.cur we may interpret ei/os either 
as ' one dish ' in antithesis to Tro/XAa, 
or, better, in a 'spiritual' sense of 
the ' one thing necessary to salva- 
tion'; of. Mk. x. 21 Iv ere 
= Lk. xviii. 22 eri iv (rot 

If we read o/Xiywv the reference must 
be to dishes. The reading dXiytov 
. . . 1} eVos does not appear to yield 
a tolerable sense. 


ON PRAYER (xi. 1-13) 

There is no close connexion between this and the preceding paragraph. 
As in the last section the topography is quite vague. Cf. eis KW//T/J/ nvd 
x. 38 with ev roTTO) nvi xi. I. 

Jesus first teaches his disciples a pattern prayer. The pattern prayer is 
paralleled with important variations in Mt. vi. 9-13. The introductory 
sentence is peculiar to Luke. As it stands the verse bears characteristic 
marks of Lucan style, but it seems unlikely that it does not reproduce some 
earlier source probably Q. The likeness and the difference between the two 
leaders, John and Jesus, reflects the actual juxtaposition of two kindred but 
not entirely harmonious groups. Cf. Mk. ii. i8f. || Lk. v. 33 f. That John 
and Jesus should teach their disciples a prayer would be in accordance with 
Jewish usage. " It was customary for a famous Rabbi to compose a special 
prayer " (Montefiore). It is remarkable that Mk. does not record ' the Lord's 
Prayer ' as an integral whole, though parallels to most of its clauses are to be 
found in other connexions in his Gospel. The Matthaean version is fuller 
than the Lucan and probably reflects the influence of liturgical usage upon 
a simpler form similar to that given in Lk. The obscure word eVtoiVios 
common to Mt. and Lk. points clearly to some common Greek source 
probably Q unless we follow Streeter's bold and unsupported conjecture that 
the texts of Lk. have been corrupted by assimilation to Mt. (p. 277 n. i). 
That Luke preserves the actual form and order of a single prayer im- 
parted by Jesus is naturally imore than we can prove. In any case the 


Prayer stands in close harmony with the leading thoughts of the teaching of 
Jesus. Parallels from Jewish prayers as well as distinctive features of ' the 
Lord's Prayer ' are admirably discussed in Abrahams (Studies, 2nd Series 
No. xii.). 

After the Lord's Prayer Lk. gives the parable of the importunate friend, 
which is peculiar to himself. There is affinity in form and in teaching between 
this parable and the parable of the widow and the unrighteous judge (likewise 
peculiar to Lk.), though the eschatological reference of the latter parable is 
not here present. Perhaps the two originally formed a pair (see on xviii. I f.). 
The moral of the parable that men should be importunate in prayer reflects 
a different niood and temper from the teaching of Mt. vi. 7, " Make not vain 


XI. I Kat eyevero ev ra> elvai avrbv ev TOTTW nvl 

fjuevov, o>9 eTravcraro, elirev Tt9 rwv paO'q'r&v avTov 
avrov Kvpie, SuSa^ov rj/Jias Trpoaev^ecrOai, /ca#a>9 KOI 

2 'Ituai/^? eSiSajfev TOW? pa6r)Ta<$- avrov. elirev Be avrols 
f 'Orav Trpoo-ev^rjarde, Xeyere Hdrep, dyiaa-0rjTCi) TO ovofjbd 

3 crow eXddra) r} (3a(n,\eia crou* TOZ/ dprov ri/ji&v rov TTIOV- 

2 Harep sine addit KBL i 22 700 al pauc vg syr.sin'arm Tert Orig Cyr : add 
o ev rots ovpavois ACD al pier (habent pro rjfjiwv sancte a c ff 2 i) syr( 
aegg 5" TO ovofta trov] D add e0 ?/^as eX^arw 77 /3a<rt\eia (rou] eX^erw 

TO Trvevpa <rov TO ayiov e0- ^as /rat Ka.Qa.pi<ra.TW was 700 162 Greg-Nyss Maxim 
(vide adnot) : add ^vt\Bt]T^ TO 0e\t)fji.a <rou ws ev ovpavta KM eiri [TTJS] 7775 t^ACD 
al pier syr (vg.hl) boh 5" : ye^drjTu TO 6e\T]fj.a aov a sah boh codd : sine 
addit BL 1-22 vg syr. vet arm Orig Cyr Tert Aug 

i. Note the characteristic Lucan 
constr. lyei/ero ev TW . . . etTrev 
. . . Lk. loves to picture Christ 
at prayer, cf. iii. 21 n. At v. 33 Lk. 
has already remarked, in an interpo- 
lation into the Marcan source, that 
the disciples of John ' make prayers.' 
The disciple asks that he and his 
fellows may be guided by their 
Master in prayer. 

2-4. The wording of the first, 
second, and last petitions is verbally 
identical with Mt. vi. gf., and the 
differences from Mt. in the third 
and fourth are not great. In the 
majority of MSS. the third and 
last Matthaean petitions have been 
interpolated into the text. The 
interesting substitute for the second 
petition, " let thy holy spirit come 
upon us and cleanse us," attested by 
Greg. Nyss., Maximus, and two 
cursive MSS., has been thought to be 
original. It would fit well with the 
Lucan reading Trvevpa ayiov in v. 13. 
So Harnack, Streeter, and more 
doubtfully Wellh. Harnack drastic- 
ally proposes to substitute it for 
the first two petitions. But for 
such a text there is no positive 
evidence. It is further to be noted 
that the textual evidence is less 
homogeneous than Streeter states; 

in Marcion apud Tert. adv. Marc. 
iv. 26 the words or their equivalent 
were a substitute for the first, not for 
the second petition. On the whole 
the text of the best MSS. may be 
accepted as original with considerable 
confidence. Perhaps the variant 
originated, as Burkitt suggests, in the 
liturgical usage of the Marcionites. 
J.Th.S. xxvi. p. 290. 

2. TLdrep]' Mt. adds i;/zwi/ and 
the characteristic expansion o ei> 
rots oi'/oai/ois. In Gethsemane (Mk. 
xiv. 36) Jesus himself prays 'A/3/i'a, 
irarep. Prayer to God as Father is 
deeply rooted in Christian practice. 
Cf. Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15 ; I Pet. 
i. 17. The collocation of 3 A/3/^a 
Trdrep may carry us back to the 
earliest Church .at Jerusalem when 
Aramaic - speaking and Greek - 
speaking congregations of believers 
worshipped side by side, and their 
usage in St. Paul's epistles very likely 
at once suggested to those who read 
the words some form of ' the Lord's 
Prayer.' Cf . Chase, The Lord's Prayer 
in the Early Church, pp. 23 f. Prayer 
to God as Father, though scarcely 
dominant as in the Christian Church, 
was in common use in the Jewish 
synagogue. Thus the sixth of the 
' eighteen benedictions ' : " Forgive 


SuBov rjfuv TO fca0' rjfjiepav KOI a<pes fjfuv ra<; d/jiap- 4 
rjfJL&v, /cal jap avrol a^Lopev Travrl 6<peL\ovTL 
elcreveyKrjs 17/^9 et9 Treupacr^ov. 




Kat 5 
<pi\ov KOL 7ropev<r6- 

likely to be more primitive. 
harmonises with the other aorists. 
The present tense in Lk. fits TO 
KaO' fjpepav ' day by day.' 

4. iu afas . . . ofaiX-ovTi] 
The thought is slightly different in 
Mt. : Kat a(es riv ra 


4 add aXXa putrcu Tj^as airo TOV irovripov ACD al pier syrr(cur. vg. hi) boh codd 
5" : om fc$BL 1-22-131 700 al pane vg syr.sin arm aegg Orig Cyr Tert Aug 

us, our Father, for we have 
sinned : pardon us, our king, for 
we have transgressed" (Authorised 
Daily Prayer Boole, ed. Abrahams, 
pp. 46, Iv). dytacr^ro) TO oVo/xa 
crou] Cf. the 'third benediction,' 
called in the Mishna ' the sanctifica- 
tion of the name ' : " Thou art holy 
and thy name is holy, and holy 
beings praise thee daily" (op. cit. 
p. 45). lA^arco TI /3acr/,Aeta crov] 
The characteristic petition of the 
Church, cf. Did. x. But it is rooted' 
in the faith of Israel. 

3. eTrioTxrtcH'] The meaning of this 
word (common to Mt. and Lk.)is quite 
uncertain. It was already obscure to 
Origen, De Or. xxvii. 15 Trap ovStvl 
rcij v 'E/\A?yi/(o;/ ovre rQ>v 
oi!re ~ev rfj T<JJV 
TGTpnrra.1, aAA' 
-UTTO rtoi/ ei5ayycAto-TWV. 
But Origen was wrong in thinking 
the word was coined by the evan- 
gelists. An unquestionable ex. of the 
word in a secular document is found 
in Preisigke, Sammelbuch griech. 
Urkunden aus Agypten, i. no. 5224 
(cf. Debrunner in Th. Lit. Zeit., 1925, 
p. 119), but the document is too 
fragmentary .to throw any light 
at all upon the meaning of the 
word. The most prob. derivation 
is from rj eTriovcra, sc. f)/j,epu, ' the 
coming day.' This seems to have 
been the interpretation of the Gosp. 
ace. to Hebr. (apud Jer. in Mt. 
vi. 1 1 ), " Mahar, quod dicitur crasti- 
num." StSov rjfjiiv TO K.a.6' ijfj.epnv'] 
Mt. 8b rjpiv o-tjfji^epov, which is 

TOIS o^betAeTats rm&v. The disciple 
has already forgiven (perfect) and 
can therefore now ask the Father 
to forgive him, cf. Mt. xviii. 35. 
Lk.'s version is more general: 
" Forgive us our sins, for we forgive 
every one who is indebted to us." 
In this and in other respects 
Lk. appears to be less primitive. 
afj.apTLa<s is a stylistic improvement 
for o<eiA?7/xaTa, which, however, 
somewhat obscures the parallelism 
between the clauses. Travrl o</>et'- 
Aoi/Tt is Lucan, cf. vi. 30, 40, xiv. n, 
xviii. 14. 

ets 7ret/jao-/Aov] To be interpreted 
generally of a situation which in- 
volves especially grave temptation 
to sin. S.B. i. 422 quote Ber. 60 b 
" Bring me not into the power of 
sin, nor into , the power of guilt, nor 
into the power of temptation." A 
direct reference here to eschatological 
woes does not seem likely. 

5. TI'S e TJ^WJ/] Cf. v. ii infra, 
xii. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvii. 7. The 
parallels are in favour of regarding 
Tts e i)/zcoj/ as the subject whose 
behaviour to his friend (v. 8) gives 
the point of the parable. There is 
thus an awkward change of subject 
between e'e6 and Tropevo-erai.. The 


TO.I 7T/309 avrov pea-ovvKTiov KOI eLTry avrw <I>/Xe, yjpr\aov 

6 fjiOL rpet? aprov?, eVetS?) <j)l\o<s JJLOV Trapeyevero eg obov 

7 Trpo? fjie Koi OVK e^eo o irapaOrjo-Q) CUVT&' Kaicelvos eawOev 

L7rr} Mi; fjuoi KOTTOVS Trapeze' 77877 rj Ovpa 
KOL TO, 7rai$ia jjiov /-ter' e'/zoO et? Trjv KOLT^V 

8 elcriv ov Svva/maL avaara^ Sovvai <roi. ~\,ey(0 V/JLIV, el ical 
ov Swcrei, avrw avacrra^ Sia TO eivai <j)L\ov avrou, Sid ye 
rrjv ava&iav avrov eyepdels Secret, avra) o<rwv 

\ey(D, alrelre, KOL 

IO KOI evprfa-ere' Kpovere, teal avoiyrjo-erau vfuv. Tra? yap 

o aiTwv Xafjifldvei,, KOI 6 %t)Twi> evpicrKei, Kal rw Kpovovn 
1 1 avouyrio'erai. riva Se e% vfjiwv rov Trarepa alrjjaet 6 

1 2 uto? l^Ovv, /jirj dvTi fydvos o(j)iv avT( eTTiSdoaei ; rj ical 
1 3 alr^aeL wov, evrtScoo'et aurw crKopiriov ; el ovv vfiels Trowq- 

pol VTrdpftovres olSare Bofjiara dyada Bi&ovai rot? re/c^ot? 

vfjiwv, TrocTft) ua\\ov 6 Trarqp [o] eg ovpavov Saxrei TrvevfJia 

ciyiov rots' alrovaiv avrov. 

8 Aeyw vfj.iv] praem et ille si perseveraverit pulsans c fl' 2 i 1 m vg n o wos] 

add aprov fj.t] \i.dov e7rtSw<ret aurw T) [/cai] ( = Matt vii. 9) codd et verss paene oiriu 5~ : 
om B fl' 2 i 1 syr.sin arm sah Orig Epiph marc 13 om o KLX 33 irvevfjia 

0710^] ayadov dofMa. D b c ff 2 i 1 codd ap Ambr Orig 1 : irvevfjia a-yadov L al pauc vg 
syr.hl-mg Cyr : ayaffa syr.sin arm 

meaning would have been better verse affirms it to be a universal 

given by a conditional sentence edi/ law that each of these three actions 

iropevOy. The parataxis is Semitic. on the part of man meets with a 

Cf. Blass, 64. 6. /J.(TOVVKTLOV] The corresponding response from God. 

journey, as often in the East, is II. riva, Se e V/AWI/ TUV irarepa] 

performed at night time to avoid We pass from the relationship of 

the heat of the day. friend to the closer relationship of 

7. ets rrjv KOLTIJV] et? for eV. Father and Son. In Mt. the cor- 

8. 5ta TT)J/ di/atStai/] It is implied, relatives are : bread stone, fish 
though not stated, that the friend serpent ; in Lk., fish serpent, egg 
repeats his request. Cf. xviii. 4 (the scorpion. 

parallel parable) Ku.l OVK ijdeXev ITTL 13. irovi]poi vTrdpxovre's] Slightly 

Xpovov. Many MSS. of lat.vt. have stronger than Trovrjpol oi/res Mt. 

supplied the omission. Cf. xviii. 19, "None is good save 

9-13. || Mt. vii. 7-11. Verses one, God." 

9, 10 are verbally identical with Mt. m>ev(j,a ayun 1 ] So in Lk. the 

vii. 7, 8. The former verse bids men Father's gift is defined. In Mt. we 

ask, seek, and knock. That they will read dyaOd, which is more likely to 

be rewarded is certain, for the second be original. 



Jesus vindicates himself against attacks. His cures are worked by the 
power of God, and not, as his critics allege, by an unholy league with the powers 
of evil. God through him is overthrowing the strongholds of Satan. To the 
demand for a sign he declares that no sign shall be given ' except the sign 
of Jonah.' His generation is condemned by its attitude to one in their midst 
who is more than Solomon and more than Jonah. 

Except vv. 27, 28 (" Blessed is the womb that bare thee," etc.), and 33-36, 
the materials of these paragraphs occur in close connexion in Mt. xii. 22 f . It 
is reasonable to suppose that both Mt. and Lk. are reproducing Q, and 
perhaps probable that Lk. retains the order of Q. The first paragraph 
(14-22) is also represented in Mk. (iii. 22 f.), but this was certainly not the 
sole source of Mt. and Lk. A number of agreements between Mt. and 
Lk. against Mk. shew that there was also a common non-Marcan source. 
This dispute, therefore, was an integral part of two main bodies of tradition. 
The fundamental similarities between Mk. and Q (so far as it may be recon- 
structed) leave little doubt that there is affinity between the two earlier 
versions. 1 An early form of the story, we may suppose, was variously 
glossed in different lines of transmission represented respectively by Mk. 
and Q. See notes on vv. ig, 20, and also of. xii. 10 (with note) where 
we find a parallel to Mk. iii. 28, 29 which is not here represented in Lk. 
and was probably not found in the Q version of this narrative. Mt. appears 
to have conflated Mk. and Q. Lk. may be supposed to have followed Q 
more closely. He has omitted the Marcan paragraph from its proper place 
above in c. vi. 

Comparison with Mt. shews that Lk. has treated the substance of 
his sources with fairly close fidelity, but it is interesting to note his attempt to 
link his materials into a consecutive narrative. At v. 16 occurs what is at 
first sight an awkward interruption of the narrative : "'Others tempting him 
sought of him a sign from heaven." This seems to have no sequel until the 
next paragraph. In Mt. (xii. 38) the equivalent to these words occurs, as 
we should expect in the introduction to the paragraph parallel to Lk. xi. 29 f. 
But, as Loisy notes, Luke's transposition is intentional. His purpose is to 

1 Streeter, however (Four Gospels, p. 189), holds that verbal similarities between 
Lk. ( = Q) and Mk. are "no more than would be inevitable if they represent two quite 
independent traditions of the same original incident and discourse." But this seems 
not to do justice to the fundamental similarity in structure between the two 


shew that Christ's healings of the possessed have the force of a sign to 
those who can read them aright (v. 20). When this has been made clear 
the way is prepared, without further introduction, for the denunciation 
of v. 29. 

14 Kal Y]V eK/BdXXcov ^ai^oviov K0)(j)6v eyevero Be rov 
Baifjboviov e%e\9bvro$ eXakyvev o Kwfyos. Kal eOav^aaav 

15 OL o^Xoi' Ttz/e? Be 6% avrwv elirav 'Ez/ Bee^e/SouX TO> 
1 6 ap'xpvri rwv Bai/jiovicov eK/3d\\ei, ra Bai/Jiovia erepoi, Be 
17 vreipd^ovres (rrjjjieiov e% ovpavov etyjrovv Trap* avrov. av- 

T09 Be elBa)S avrwv ra Biavotj/nara elirev avrols Hdaa 

(3aa-i\ia e'qb' eavrrjv Bia/j,epia-QeLcra eprj/^ovrai, Kal oltcos 
1 8 eVl OLKOV TTiirrei. el Be Kal o iLaravas e<f> eavrov Bi- 

efJLepicrQr), TTW? crraO I'laerai rj (Baa-iXeia avrov; on X^ere 
19 ev T$e%e(3ov\ eKJSdXkeiv pe ra BaLfj,6via. el Be eyoa ev Bee- 

e/3ov\ eK{3d\\co ra BaijJiovia, ol viol VJJLWV ev rivu e 

14. In Mt. the possessed man is cast out by the prince of the devils 
both blind and dumb. The actual may be alleged with equal justice 
healing is not mentioned in Mk. as against the recognised exorcists, and 
the occasion of the dispute. they may be left to answer it. For 

15. rtves Se e avrwv] In Mk. the practice of exorcism among the 
the critics are scribes from Jerusalem, Jews cf. esp. Jos. Ant. viii. 2. 5 
and itf Mt. Pharisees. Lk. makes Trayoecr^e 8' aur(p (-no 

them ' some from the multitudes.' fj-aOetv 6 $eos KCU T>)I> Kara, 

Cf. iii. 7 n. (with the parallel from Sai/xovtov re^vrjv eis w^eAetai/ /cat 

Mt.). The critics do not question Oeparr^iav rots aV0/xu7rois' eVc t oSas 

the reality of the cures, any more re o-vi/ra^a/xevos at? Tra/^yo/Detrai 

than Jesus himself questions the ra vocrr//xara /cat rpoirovs eo/?/cojcretoi/ 

reality of the cures wrought by /careAtTrei/, ofs ot evSov/xei/ot ra 

others (v. 19). Sai/zot>ta ws im\ e/<- 

16. See Introd. and v. 29 n. 8uaov<rt. /cat avrrj {J-e\pi vvv Trap' 
iy. etSws avraiv ra Stai/oryyotara] vy//,ti/ rj depaTreLa. TrAetcrroj/ tcr^i'et. 

et'Sws ras e^^u/^crets avriav Mt. There follows an instructive account 

Not in Mk. ot/cos eirl OLKOV} ota- of the extraction of demons from 

[lepio-Oeis must be supplied. " A the afflicted by one Eleazar in the 

house divided against itself falls." presence of Vespasian and his sons 

'This is clearly expressed in Mk. and officers. Cf. also Acts xix. 13 f. 

and Mt. Verses 19, 20 are found almost 

1 8. 6'rt Aeyere /crA.] An interpre- identically in Mt. (TTVCV/JMTL for 

tative statement not in Mt. and Sa/cn'Aoj). But they are not in 

Mk. : prob. added by Lk. The Mk. The sequence of 19 and 20 

constr. ace. and infin. is rare in the raises the obvious difficulty that the 

Gospels. ' appeal to the example of the Jewish 

19. The charge that devils are exorcists followed by the assertion 


\OV<TLV; Sia TOVTO avTol vfjbwv Kpiral ecrovTat. el Be ev 2O 
oaKTv\fi) Oeov [ey&>] e'/c/3aXXft> TCL Baifjiovia, apa efyOaeev 
e<j) v/jia$ 77 /SacrtXeta TOV Oeov. orav o Icrftvpos /cad- 2 1 
a)7r\Lo- fjuevos (f)v\d(Tcrr) TTJV eavTOV avXrjv, ev elprjvrj earlv 
ra vTrdp^ovTa avrov' enrav Be Icr^vpOTepo^ avTov eireXdaJv 22 
vitcr^crr] avrov, rrjv iravoirXiav avTov alpei e'(/>' f) eVeTrot^et, 
Kal ra GKV\a avTov SiaSi$a)crii>. 6 /Mr) wv /zer' e/Mov Kar 23 
ecrTiV, teal 6 ^ (rvvdryoov /JLCT e/uov 

"Orav TO dtcddapTOV Trvev^a e^eXdrj diro TOV dvOpwirov, 24 
BiepyeTat, Si* avvbpwv TOITWV Ql TOVV iwcnravaiv, Kal /JLTJ 
evpicrKov [rore] \eyei er Tiro(TTpe^rw et9 TOV ol/cov /j,ov 
oOev e%f)\,@ov KOI e\0ov evpio-iceL [cr^oXa^oz/ra,] creaaput- 2$ 

22 iffxuporepos sine artic tfBDGLF 700 Cyr : praem o AC al pier Eus ~ 

24 evpivKov'] add rore ( = Mt. xii. 44) BLX3 33 157: non add KAOD unc rell 

25 ffxoXafoi/Ta] add BCL I etc 579 al pauc f 1 syr.lil boh (Matt xii. 44) : om tfAD al 
pier latt syrr arm sah S~ 

that, if Jesus casts out devils by the ruler of the world, whose kingdom is 

finger of God, then the kingdom of being assaulted by the powers of the 

God is come upon them, seems to kingdom of God. The 'stronger' is 

require the admission that the success either Jesus himself or, more prob- 

of the Jewish exorcists implies the ably, God. 

same conclusion. This difficulty is 22. TO, <rKv\a avrov 

in favour of Bultmann's hypothesis Cf. Is. liii. 12 TWV la--\vplav 

that the reference to the Jewish cr/cvAa. 

exorcists is a later insertion perhaps 23. An appeal to those who hear 

to be ascribed to the controversies to take sides with him against the 

of the early community with its powers of Satan. This saying is not 

Jewish opponents. Verse 20 Bult- in Mk., but is found in Mt. and 

mann holds to be part of the original therefore may be assigned to Q. 

narrative. It connects well with In another connexion Jesus could 

i8a. say the converse. Cf. ix. 50 (=Mk. 

20. This is Jesus' own inter- ix. 40). 

pretation of his success. Though 24-26. || Mt. xii. 43-45 where 

the kingdom is yet to come, it is the verses follow the denunciation 

nevertheless already operative when of the evil and adulterous genera- 

he acts. tion (=Lk. w. 29-32). Mt. con- 

21-22. Lk., perhaps following Q, eludes with the words oimos e'crrui 

is here much fuller than Mk. and Kal ry ycveu. ravrrj rfj Trovi/pa, thus 

Mt. In Mk. and Mt. the strong man implying that the saying is to be 

is a householder. Lk. gives the regarded as a parable of the future 

picture of the strong man armed to apostasy of the Jewish people. This, 

defend his palace against attack, and as Wellh. says, is very artificial. 

then robbed of his panoply. The The Lucan order probably comes 

' strong man ' is Satan, the de facto from Q. But it is likely that the 



Tore rropeverai real 

26 fjuevov /cal /ceKocrfjLrjfjLevov. rore rropeverai /cat, rrapa- 
\ajjb/3dvei erepa rrvevp,ara Trovyporepa eavrov errrd, /cal et'cr- 
e\6ovra Karoucel eicel, /cal ^iverau ra ecr^ara rov dvOpwrrov 

27 e/ceivov ^eLpova rwv rrpajrcov. 'Ryevero Be ev rw 
\eryeiv avrov ravra errdpaard Tt? <pwvr)v ryvvr) etc rov o^Xov 
elrrev avr<p ^AaKapia rj /coi\ia 77 f3ao~rdo~acrd ere /cal 

28 fjLacrrol ov? e^Xacra?* avros Be elrrev Mevovv fjba/cdpLoi 
ol d/covovre<i rov \oyov rov 6eov /cal fyvXdcrcrovTes. 

29 Twv Be o^Xwv erraOpoi^ofjbevwv rjp^aro \ejeiv 'H ^ez/ea 
avrr) ryevea rrovrjpd ecmv' cr^fietov fyret, /cal (rij/uLetov ov 

saying was not always attached to 
the narrative preceding. The most 
satisfactory interpretation seems to 
be that the saying conveys a warning 
to those who have been freed from 
possession by 'unclean spirits' to 
strengthen themselves in the power 
of God, lest they fall a victim once 
more to their old enemy who will 
return reinforced. The belief that 
the expelled spirits seek ' rest ' in 
some body is well illustrated by the 
story of the Gerasene demoniac, 
viii. 32 f., and for the danger that 
they will return to their old home 
cf. Jos. quoted on v. 19. 

27-28. We seem to have here a 
variant of the saying on the true 
kinsfolk of Jesus (Lk. viii. 19-21) 
which in Mk. follows closely on 
the sayings concerning ' casting out 
devils by Beelzebub ' ( |) Mt. xii. 46, 


28. pevovv] 'Nay rather.' The 
use of this enclitic at the beginning 
of a sentence is reproved by Phry- 
nichus, cccxxii. 

29-32. || Mt. xii. 38-42. This 
paragraph refers back to v. 16. In 
Mt. it is again the Scribes and 
Pharisees who, by their request 
for a sign, call forth the words of 
Jesus. .Cf. also the similar passage 
in Mk. viii. 11-13 where the 
Pharisees ask for a sign. Lk.'s 

introduction is probably his own 
editing. He again gives the o^Aot 
as the background of the address. 
eTradpOL^ecrOai here only in N.T. 
But Lk. (and Lk. only) thrice uses 
crvvaBpo ifccr da i . 

29. Lk. does not give the epithet 
/>iotxoAt's, perhaps because the meta- 
phor might not be understood. 

i /jirj TO (n^/zetbv J Iwj/a] In Mk. 
viii. 1 1 f . the request for a sign is 
unconditionally refused. The quali- 
fication of Mt. and , Lk. et pr) 
TO 0-T7/A610V 'Icoj/a raises great diffi- 
culties. In the next verse the 
explanation is given that as Jonah 
was a sign to the Ninevites, so the 
Son of Man shall be to this genera- 
tion. This is very vague. It also 
connects badly with the preceding 
verse, for Jonah was not a sign to 
' this generation,' but only an ana- 
logue to the sign that was granted. 
Mt. has another interpretation, 
which is also open to the last 
objection : the sign of Jonah is that 
he was three days and three nights 
in the whale's belly, which is an 
analogue to the Son of Man who 
shall be three days and three nights 
in the heart of the earth. Wellb. 
and Loisy think that Lk. read this 
in Q and amended it, perhaps 
because it conflicted with his view 
of the chronology of the burial and 



$o6r)(reTai avrfj el fjbrj TO o"rj^,elov 'I com. Kadw? yap 30 
eyeveTO [o] ^Iwva? Tol? Nivevelrai? (rrjfielov, OUTGO? e&Tai 
teal o v to? TOV av6 pawrov 'TTJ yevea TavTrj. (3aa'i\ia'(Ta 3 1 
VOTOV eyepOrjcreTat ev Ty Kpidei //-er TWV avSpwv Trj? 
yevea? TavTy? /cal KaTa/cpivel avTov?' OTL rj\6ev IK TWV 
irepaTcov Trj? 7779 aicovarai Trjv crofyiav ^oXoficovo?, KCU IBov 
irKelov %o\o/J,a)vo? w8e. dvBpe? NivevetTai dvao'T^crovTat, $2 
ev Ty Kpicrei /uera TYJ? yeved? TavTrj? teal KaTatcpwovcrw 
avTrjV on [AeTevorja'av el? TO Kypvy/jia *\wva, Koi tSou 
irKelov 'Iwm c58e. OvSel? \V')(vov a^ra? el? KpvTTTrjv TiOr)- 33 
a iv ovBe VTTO TOV fiobuov XX' eirl Trjv \v^viav, Iva ol 

30 add D a e ff 2 Kai A-a0ws (e sicut enini) Iwi'as ev ri) /cotXia TOV KOTOWS eyevero 
rpty T/^e/ias KO.L rpets VVKTO.S ourws Kai o vios TOV avQpwirov ev rt] 777 (cf. Matt xii. 40). 

32 om D 

e om totuni v. 30 

69 700 syr.sin arm sail 

resurrection (Loisy), or perhaps be- 
cause he stumbled at the allusion 
to the whale (Wellh.). Harnack, 
on the other hand, holds that had 
Lk. read Mt. xii. 40, he would not 
have left it out, and that therefore 
Lk. may be assumed to preserve 
the original reading of the source. 

33 ovde VTTO TOV /j.odiov om LF2 I etc 

with ( riov ai/opoii/ r. y. r. in 
v. 31, and argues that this is some 
support for the supposition that in 
Lk., v. 32 is an interpolation from 
Mt. On the other hand, the omis- 
sion in D may be easily explained 
by homoioteleuton. 
31. Lk. does not stumble at 

A third and perhaps^more probable f3a<ri\.Lur(ra. Cf. Phryn. ccii. /2acri- 

hypothesis is that both Mt. xii. 40 A/cro-cr ovSets TWJ/ 

and Lk. xi. 30 are independent 

glosses to explain the allusion. Dr. 

J. H. Michael argues very attractively 

in J.Th.S. xxi. (Jan. 1920) pp. 146 f. 

for a conjecture which, if it could 

be established, would meet the diffi- 
culty: 'Itova, he suggests, is a very 

early corruption for'Iwavov due to the 

subsequent reference to Jonah. The 

original saying, then, was that the 

only sign to that generation was John 

the Baptist. This would harmonise 

admirably with Mk. xi. 27 f. For the 

confusion between the two names cf. 

Mt. xvi. 17 with Jo. xxi. 15. 

31-32. The verses occur in re- 
verse order in Mt. D omits v. 32. 

aAAd j3a.crtX.eia 77 

33. This saying has been already 
taken over by Lk. (viii. 16) from 
Mk. There the Marcan form is 
amplified by the same concluding 
clause that is found here : tVa . . . 
/jAeTrtixrt. The saying is also found 
in Mt. v. 15. Kpvirrij] 'a cellar.' 
Not in the other evv., nor elsewhere in 
the N.T. Luke may have taken this 
saying with the preceding, and inter- 
preted the light of Jesus: the light of 
Jesus shines openly in the world and 
no further sign is necessary. "The 
saying was a proverb taken over by 

the Christian tradition, and ready 
for any good use " (Loisy). ovSe VTTO 

Harnack notes that //.era rr/s yei/eas roi' /xoStov] Perhaps interpolated here 

in v. 32 agrees with M't. but not from Mt. 


34 elo-TTopevofjievoi, rb (009 fiXeTrcoa-iv. 'O \v^vo^ rov 

e<TTiv o o(J)0a\,/jLOs aov. orav o 6(f)0a\fjLO<} crov airXovs 
teal o\ov rb crw//,a crov fywrivbv ecmv eTrav Se 

3 5 #j 
36 eV 


crot cr/eoTO9 












crou 6'A,oz/ fywruvov, 

35, 36 substit Matt vi. 23 b D : syr.cur habet Luc xi. 35 + Matt vi. 23 b ; 
f q syr.sin habent Luc xi. 35 (f etiam v. 36) + fere if there fore thy body hath 
no lamp that shineth, it is darkened ; how much more when, the lamp 
shineth doth it lighten thee 

unsoundness, cf. class, 
e'^eii/. But probably both 
and Trovi-ip6<s are used as readily 
applicable to describe moral condi- 

36. This verse is very obscure. 
The variants are probably to be 

explained as attempts to mend a 

34, 35. As the light of the body 
depends upon the eye, so, it is 
implied, does the light of man's life 
depend upon his heart (TO <<Ss TO ev 
crot). Cf. Aristot. Top. i. 17, p. 108 a 
(os 6il/L<s ev o(f>6aXfJL(p vous ev faxy- 
Philo, De op. mundi, 53. Perhaps 
the intended connexion with the 
preceding is : to see the light, even difficulty. Some very early corrup- 
when set on the stand, an open eye tion may be suspected which is now 
is needed, with an implied reference irremediable. The plain translation 
to the unreceptive Jews. Or perhaps 
the connexion hangs merely on the 
parabolic use of Av^i/os common to 
v. 33 and v. 34. The same saying is 
found in Mt. vi. 22-23. uirXovs 
. . . Trovr/pos] Cf. McNeile and 

Klostermann on Mt. vi. 22. 7roi/?7/oos 

gives an intolerably platitudinous 
meaning. Possibly the verse pro- 
vided a conclusion linking together 
the two logia preceding: if the heart 
is truly receptive of light, it will 
receive light from the true light 
when it shines, that is from Christ, 
can be used of purely physical (Cf. Klostermann.) 

These denunciations of the Pharisees and lawyers are all of them closely 
paralleled in Mt. xxiii., and may be presumed to come from Q. Matthew 
has conflated them with the briefer denunciation recorded in Mk. xii. 38, 
which Luke has left standing in its proper place at xx. 45 f . But the Matthaean 
denunciations are much longer than the Lucan, and the method of arrangement 
is entirely different. It is hard to decide whether Luke read a fuller version 
and has abbreviated, or whether, as Streeter prefers to think, Matthew has 
conflated Q (substantially reproduced by Luke) with another independent 
version, as well as with Mark. Much of the material in Matthew not found 
in Luke has a pronounced Jewish colouring, and would be of less interest to 
Luke's readers. 


In Matthew, after some opening teachings with regard to the attitude of 
the disciples towards the practices of the scribes and Pharisees (vv. 1-12), 
we have a series of seven ' woes.' In Luke there are six ' woes,' of which 
three are pronounced upon Pharisees and three upon ' lawyers ' (i.e. scribes). 
But there is something artificial about this arrangement. The dividing verse 
(45) is a somewhat clumsy division. Moreover the second ' woe ' of the 
second series (v. 47 f.) does not appear to be especially appropriate to lawyers. 

This second ' woe ' on the lawyers occurs in Matthew at the conclusion 
of the whole section, where it leads on to the great lament over Jerusalem, 
which Luke has reserved for xiii. 34 f. Luke's conclusion is abrupt and 
much less impressive. The last ' woe ' in Luke (" the lawyers have taken 
away the key of knowledge ") corresponds to the first of the seven ' woes ' 
in Mt. (xxiii. 14). 

The scene is laid by Luke at a Pharisee's dinner-table. That Jesus should 
choose such an occasion for his denunciation is certainly remarkable, but 
there can be little doubt that vv. 37, 38 is a setting provided by Luke. Cf. 
vii. 36 xiv. i. 

Se TW XaXfjaai, epcora avrov Qapia-atos OTTCOS dpi- 37 
Trap avrw' elo~\6a)V Se averreaev. o Se QapicraLos 3& 
e0avfjia(rev on ov irpwrov ej^airria-Ori rrpo rov apiarov. 
elrrev Se o Kvpios 77/309 avrov Nvz/ v^els ol ^apiaaloL 39 
TO ea>Qev rov Trorrjpiov KCU rov rcivaKos KaOapi^ere, rb 
Se eawOev it^wv yefjiei apirayi)^ KOI Trovrjptas. d(J3pove<s, 40 
ov% 6 Troitfa-as rb e%a)6ev KOL rb ecrcoOev erroLrjcrev ; 
40 TO ew#ei' /cat TO evudev] TO effuOev /cat TO ei;<aOev CD ace Cypr 

37. iv Se rw \a.X?i<rai\ Not 'while xxiii. 25. Wellh. holds that ye/zovo-t 
he was speaking,' but ' after he had in Mt. is a mistranslation of the 
spoken,' cf. ii. 27, x. 35 n. Aramaic and should be -ye/xere. J. 

38. ou vrpMTov lp<nrT{.(r9if\ The Weiss, less probably, holds that 
same omission is complained of on the Mt. gives the more original form: 
part of the disciples, Mk. vii. That the dishes are full of extortion, 
chapter, which is part of the section because their contents are secured 
of Mk. not reproduced in Lk., very by hypocritical pretence. (The 
likely suggested this introduction. Pharisees ' devour widows' houses,' 

39. TO Se '4<ru6ev vp.uv\ The con- Mk. xii. 40.) But such manner of 
trast lies between the outer cleansing speech seems too subtle for the 
of dishes and the inner cleansing of gospel sayings. 

the heart. This is more intelligible 40. If the ordinary reading is 
than the contrast betweep the outside punctuated with a question mark 
and the inside of the cup in Mt. > (as in WH.) 6 TTOUJO-US must be inter- 


41 Tr^rjv TCL evbvra Sore eXeTyjboa-vvrjv, teal IBov iravra KaOapa 

42 vjuv ea-Tiv. d\\a oval vpZv roi? Qapifraiois, OTL aTroBeKarovre 
TO fjBvoo-pov Kal TO 7rr)yavov real irav \d%avov, Kal irap- 
ep^eade Trjv Kpicnv KOI Trjv d^dirrjv TOV deov' TavTa Be e'Bei 

43 TTOLrjaaL KciKelva fj,rj Trapelvau. oval VJMV TO? <$>api,craLoi$, 
OTL dyaTraTe TTJV TrpwTOKadeBpiav ev rat? 

44 TOU? da-TracrfMovs ev rat? dyopai?. oval VJJ,LV, OTL eVre a>9 
ra fMvr) fjiela TO, aSr)\a, ical ol avOpwirou ol irepiTraTovvTe^ 

45 CTrdvo) OVK oiSa&LV. ATro/epiOels Be rt? TWV VO^LKWV \eyet 

46 avTW AtSacr/caXe, TavTa \e^wv Kal rj/jids v/Bpl^eis. 6 Be- 
elirev Kal vfuv rot? vofuLiKois ovai, OTL <j)opTieT6 TOVS av- 
0p<i)7rov<$ <f)opTia Bvaftda-TaKTa, Kal avTol evl TWV BaKTV\a)v 

42 raura . . . -jrapeivcu ora D 

preted of God, ' he who created,' 
but the sense is far from clear. 
Wellh. follows D etc. in transposing 
e'crcu#ei/ and e<oOev and interprets 
TTOLtiv as ' to put aright ' as German 
machen, Eng. colloq. 'do' ('do 
the hair,' etc.), cf. 2 Regn. xix. 
24. " Fools, he who has set aright 
what is within, hath he not also set 
aright what is without ? " 

41. A very obscure verse of which, 
as it stands, no satisfactory explana- 
tion is forthcoming. Wellh. thinks 
that Sore eAery/zocrwryv is due to a 
translator who mistook Aram, dakki 
' purify ' for zakki ' give alms.' The 
conjecture is supported by Matthew, 
who gives Ku.6u.purov. 

42. rijv KpLaLV Kal Tijv dya7r?/v 
TOU Oeov} i.e. the two chief command- 
ments, cf. x. 25 supra. With the 
exception of Mt. xxiv. 12 this is 
the only passage in the synoptists 
where the noun ayair^ occurs. Mt. 
xxiii. 23 gives TI)V Kpia-iv KOL TO 
e'Aeos KO.L rr/v TT'UTTIV. TU.VTO. Se e'Set 
. . . irapeivai] Possibly interpolated 
from Mt. xxiii. 23. See crit. note. 

43. || Mt. xxiii. 6. See also below, 
xx. 46 ( = Mk. xii. 38). 

44. As the existence of the tomb 
with its defiling contents is not sus- 
pected, so men do not suspect what 
lies beneath the Pharisaic exterior. 
Mt. (xxiii. 27) gives a different point. 
The Pharisees are compared to 
' whitened ' tombs, with a reference 
to the custom of whitening the tombs 
before Passover in order that those 
who pass by might be warned to avoid 
defilement (cf. Abrahams, Studies, ii. 
pp. 29 f.). Thus the tombs in Mt. are 
not, as in Lk., aS?;Aa, and the contrast 
is between the fair exterior and its 
defiling contents. It is hard to decide 
whether Lk. has amended a refer- 
ence to a custom which, perhaps, 
was not understood either by him- 
self or his readers, or whether the 
Matthaean version is to be regarded 
as a secondary and interpretative 
comparison (so Wellh.). The former 
is perhaps more likely (so Loisy). 

45. A highly artificial interruption, 
which serves to divide the two sets of 
denunciations. I/O/UKWI/] Cf. x. 25 n. 

46. || Mt. xxiii. 4. Luke has re- 
written. ovo-pd(TTUi<ra (Plut., Philo), 
TrpQ<rif>aviv (class.), both literary 
words which do not occur elsewhere 


ov Trpoa-^ravere rot? (j)oprioi<;. oval vfuv, OTI OLKO- 47 

Bo/nelre ra fjivrj^ela rwv irpo^rMV 01 $ Trarepes v 

avrovs. apa pdpTvpes ecrre KOI crvvevSo/ceiTe 48 

Tot9 6/370*9 TWV Trareptov v/j,wv, cm avrol /j,ev 

avTovs vfjieis Be oLKoSof^etre. Bia TOVTO KOI r) cro<j)La rov 49 

deov elTrev ATrocrTeA-w el? avrovs Trpocfrrfras KOI airo- 

, KOL e avrwv aTTOKTevovo'LV KCLL Bi(o^ovcri,i>, Iva etc- 50 
fj TO alpa irdvrcav rwv TT/JO^T/TWZ/ TO eKKe^vfJievov drro 

/coer/nov airo rij? yeveas ravr^, airo ai'fjLaros 5 J 
e'(W9 atparos Za^apiov rov diroXo/jievov /Jiera^v rov 

48 KO.I cruvevdoiceiTe'] fj,f] ffwevftoKeiv D lat.vt Lucif 49 /cat 77 tro^ta r. 6. 

enrev om D b Llicif 

in N.T. The meaning is that the pretation of the Wisdom of God here 

scribes, by means of their casuistical is uncertain. Some have supposed 

interpretation, know how to evade the that we have a quotation from an 

burdens which they impose on others, apocryphal book (so still, Bultmann), 

47-51. This ' woe' is not especially but this does not seem likely. Christ 

applicable to the VO/XIKCH. The himself is 'the wisdom of God' 

parallel in Mt. is somewhat longer (i Cor. i. 24), but he cannot speak 

and somewhat clearer (xxiii. 29-36). of himself as such, and it is harsh 

The fundamental thought is that to suppose, with Loisy, that Luke 

the Pharisees only honour prophets could understand him to do so. It 

who are dead. They, too, will is best to take the words as a peri- 

slay the prophets whom God will phrasis for God : "God, in his wisdom, 

send to them. Thus they are true said I will send ..." This is in 

sons of their fathers who slew the keeping with the general usage of 

prophets of old. But the funda- the prophets and of the Gospels : it 

mental thought is somewhat obscured is God who sends. Cf. Jer. vii.,25; 

in v. 48. By building the tomb of a Is. vi. 8 ; Mk. xii. 2 f . But the 

prophet you do not prove that you abrupt introd. of >/ croc/ua in a quasi- 

consent to the deed of those who personified sense must be admitted 

killed him. With Loisy, the verse to be strange. 

may be regarded as an "oratorical irpofa'iTas KOL aTrocrroAous] A 

fiction, which accentuates somewhat Christianized version of the Jewish 

violently what is read in Mt. (xxiii. collocation of terms in Mt. : prophets 

31-32 a)." In Mt. the thought and wise men and scribes, u-o- 

runs : By priding yourselves on your /era/own KCU Suo^ovcrt] Longer in 

superiority to your fathers, you Mt., who speaks of ' crucifying,' 

yourselves testify that you are the ' scourging in the synagogues,' and 

sons of your fathers. Do you too persecuting ' from city to city.' 

fill up the measure of your fathers. 50. TO rxi/za Trai'Ttov TMV 7rpo'/>7;Twi'] 

49. 7/ troc/jta TOV Oeov eiTrei'] In Mt. Trai' afy/,a CH'KOUOI', which is 

Mt. the words following are directly more appropriate, for neither Abel 

spoken by Jesus ; Jesus is the nor Zechariah were strictly prophets. 

subject of uTroo-Te/XAco. The inter- 51. Zu^upou] If Wellh. (Einlei- 


6v(TLaa"n]piov KOI TOV OIKOV vai, \eyco V/JLLV, eK^rrjO^aeTaL 
5 2 airo T/}? yeveas ravr?}?. oval v/uv TOA? VO/JLLKOLS, OTL ijpare 

rrjv /c\ei$a rfjs tyvaxrew avrol ov/c elcrfaOare Kal TOV<$ etV- 
5 3 ep^ofjuevovs eicwKvcrare. KdtceWcv e%G\6ovTos avrov 

52 7?pare] eitpv^are D 157 lat.vt syr.vt arm 53-54 Ae^oiros de ravra TT/DOS 

aurous evwiriov iravTos TOV Xaou -rjp^avro 01 4>apt(ratoi Kat 01 VO/J.IKOL Seivws fX fiV KaL 
ffw/3a\\etv ai/rw irepi ir'hei.oixav fyTovvres a<f)0pfjt,r)i> riva \a(3eiv avrov iva evpuiffiv 
avrov D lat.vt. syr.vt (sin om iva . . . avrov) 

tung, pp. i i8f.) is right in supporting fj.erav TOV Ovcriaa-rrjpiov /cat TOV 

the interpretation of Chrysostom and ot/cov] In the court of the priests 

Grotius that the Zechariah here in- before the Holy Place. This seems to 

tended was Zechariah the son of Baris- be in favour of the son of Jehoiada 

caeus, an eminent and wealthy citizen, the priest. See Zahn (ad loc.), who 

of Jerusalem, who was slain by two refers to discussions in Talmud and 

zealots in the courts of the Temple Midrash as to the court in which 

A.D. 68 (Jos. B.J. iv. 5. 4), this Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was 

passage must be dated after the killed, and the answer that it was in 

Jewish war. Wellh. is folio wed among the court of the priests. The other 

others by E. Meyer. But there seems Zechariah was slain iv />ir<o TUJ iepu) 

no decisive objection to interpreting (Jos. I.e.), which does not mean more 

(with the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews) than in the midst of the Temple 

of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the enclosure. 

priest, whose murder is described in 52. || Mt. xxiii. 14 KA.eter ri]v 

2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22. The addition fiacriXctav rwv ovpavioi' t^TrpoarOev 

in Mt. ' son of Barachiah ' may rwv dvQpuTruv ty-iets yap OVK eio~- 

be due to interpretation of the epxeo~0e, ouSe roi'? eio-e/ox /^" 01 ' 5 

Zechariah who perished in the siege ac/Here eiVeA.#ea/. The latter part of 

of Jerusalem, or, more probably, the verse in Lk. shews that a similar 

may be ascribed to confusion with form of the saying lies behind the 

Zechariah the prophet, the son of Lucan text. But in the former half, 

Berechiah (Zech. i. i). That the for ' kingdom of God ' has been sub- 

reference is to the son of Jehoiada is stituted 71/0)0- is. We may see Hel- 

well argued in McNeile, St. Matthew, lenistic influence here, yvwrm occurs 

p. 340, and it is accepted by Loisy. elsewhere in the Gospels only at 

This interpretation appears to give Lk. i. 77. But cf. esp. i Cor. viii. 

a definitely better sense : all the i f ., and see Preuschen-Bauer, s.v. 

righteous blood that has been shed 53-54- The reading of D etc. is pre- 

upon the earth through the ages re- ferred by Blass and Wellh. If this is 

corded in Scripture is to be required of right, the text of the best MSS. repre- 

this generation. But if Zechariah is sents a correction to adapt the words 

the Zechariah who perished in the to the situation supposed in v. 37. 

siege of Jerusalem under Titus, he But the weight of textual evidence 

himself belonged to ' this genera- is in favour of the reading of WH., 

tion.' We read in 2 Chron. xxiv. 22 and the originality of this reading 

of the son of Jehoiada that " when he is supported by the rare words and 

died, he said The Lord look upon it, unusual metaphor, which are not 

and require it." likely to be due to an interpolator. 


rjp^avro ol rypafjifjiaTeis KOI ol Qapiaaloi Beivws eve^iv KOI 
(i7ro(7TOfjLaTL^iv avTov iTcpl ir\Gibvwv, eveSpevovres avrov 54 
0r)p6V(raL TL ex rov o"TOyuaro9 avrov. 

54 eveBpevovres [avTov] . . . crro/xaros O.VTOV XBL 579 aegg aetli : add [/u] 
res post [avroi>] et postea tva KaTriyoprfffwcriv avrov AC al pier vg syrr(vg.hl) 5~ 

The tamer Western reading maybe 277 A. But this is not appropriate 

correction due to the influence of here. We require the meaning 'to 

xii. i and Mt. xxiii. i. question,' unless the word may be 

53. ei/t^eti/] Cf. Mk. vi. 19; Gen. taken with Wellh. as equivalent to 

xlix. 23. xoXoi/ is to be understood. ei/eSpeuety drjptvurai n in the next 

The full form eVe^eti/ ^oAoi/ rtvi verse. We may compare the im- 

occursinHerod.i. Ii8,vi. 119, viii.27. proper use of fxTreATrt^eti/, vi. 35. 

tt7ro<TTo//,ari'eij/] Here only in N.T. 54. ej/cSpei'ai/] Elsewhere in N.T. 

The proper meaning is 'to repeat by only Ac. xxiii. 21. Oi^peveiv] Here 

heart.' Cf. Plato, Euthyd. 276 c, only in N.T. 


We have here a group of discourses loosely put together, in a framework 
.which may be ascribed to the evangelist. 

After a warning against ' the leaven of the Pharisees,' which connects 
with the preceding section, we pass on (vv. 2-12) to a collection of sayings 
which are to inspire and encourage the disciples in face of danger and opposi- 
tion. They are in the hands of God, and need fear none else. Verses 2-9 occur 
in the same sequence in Mt. x., where they form part of the charge to the 
Twelve. No doubt each evangelist took the sayings from Q. Verse 10 occurs 
in another setting in Matthew and Mark. Verses 11-12 are peculiar to Luke. 

Verses 13-21 give another illustrative story (cf. x. 25, Introd.) peculiar to 
Luke, which shews us the folly of covetousness. This leads on to another collec- 
tion of sayings (vv. 22-53), which are intended to wean hearers from undue 
anxiety about the needs of this life. Their true treasure is to be found in God's 
kingdom. Let them be on the watch for the coming of the Son of Man ; and 
let them be prepared for strife and division as the outcome of Christ's mission 
on earth. The former part of this discourse (vv. 22-31 and 33-34) occurs in 
Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount (vi. 25-33, I 9- 21 )- Verses 39-46 are 
incorporated by Matthew with the eschatological discourse of Mk. xiii. in 
c. xxiv. Verses 51-53 form part of the charge to the Twelve in Mt. x. 34-36. 
Verses 35-38 and 47-50 are peculiar to Luke, and their provenance must 
remain doubtful. 

At v. 54 Jesus addresses the multitudes. Let them discern the signs of 
the times, and let them take heed to settle their account with their adversary 


betimes, lest they fall under the condemnation of God. The parallel of 
w. 58-59 with Mt. v. 25-26 is discussed in the notes. 

The thought of judgement is still carried on over the next two paragraphs, 
both of which are peculiar to Luke. Some Galileans have been murderously 
killed by Pilate. Neither they, nor some Judaeans who have been killed by 
a falling tower in Siloam, must be supposed to have been sinners above the 
rest. A doom hangs over all unless they repent. The same moral is enforced 
by the subsequent parable of the unfruitful fig-tree. 

XII. i Eiv ot9 e r JTLO'vvaj(6eLa'(t)v T&V /AvpidScov rov o^Kou, ware 
tear air CUT elv aAA,7?Xou9, ijp^aTo \e<yet,v irpos TOUS /^adtjra^ 
avrov TTpwrov ^.poffe^eTG eawrols UTTO T^? 1^779, 777^9 ecrrlv 

2 t7TO/Cpfc<Tt9, TWV QaplCTCUWV. Qv$V Be 

ea-rlv o OVK aTTOKaXv^dtjaerai, Kal KpvTrrov o ov 

3 avG 1 wv ocra ev rfj aKoria eiirare ev TM (j)Q)rl 

i. ev ots] i.e. while the machina- not directly interpreted in Mk. In 

tions of the Pharisees were proceed- Mt. ' the leaven of the Pharisees 

ing. The phrase occurs elsewhere in and Sadducees ' is said to be their 

N.T. only in Ac. xxvi. 12. 'teaching.' This is not quite what 

Trpwrov] Wellh. wishes to omit Mk. understood, for he speaks also 

with syr.sin b vg, but it is an of the ' leaven of Herod.' Lk. says 

unlikely interpolation. It is better that it is ' hypocrisy.' 
taken (as in K D etc., see Tisch.) with 2-3. The connexion as we read in 

the words preceding, not (as by some Lk. is probably intended to be ex- 

other MSS. and some modern editors) plained by the key-word I'jro/cpicris. 

as the first word of the address. " Beware of hypocrisy ; all that is now 

Wellh. notes that in Lk. Jesus covered shall come to light; what 

scarcely ever addresses the disciples you say in darkness shall be spoken 

alone ; the multitude is almost always in light." In Mt. x. 26 f. the keyword 

in the background. In this section ' hypocrisy ' does not occur and a 

Jesus begins to speak first to the different turn is given to the sayings 

disciples. At v. 13 one from the by reading o Aeyco vplv for 6'cm 

multitude interrupts and receives his o ets TO oS d/covere for o 717)05 TO 

answer. Then at v. 22 the moral is e/XaA^o-aTe, and imperatives 

pressed home upon the disciples. Kypv^are for the passives 

Finally, at v. 54, the surrounding O-CTCU, K^pv^O^o-eraL. Thus the say- 

multitudes are addressed. ing is an injunction to the disciples 

TT)S up?s TWI/ <3?apio-ouW] to proclaim boldly in public what 

This warning occurs in Mk. viii. 15 has been learnt privately from Jesus. 

(i.e. part of the section of Mark left This gives a better connexion with 

out by Luke) = Mt. xvi. 6, 1 1 f . Luke what follows, and is perhaps more 

here makes the warning a transition original than the Lucan version (so 

from the denunciation of the Pharisees Harnack, Wellh.). Note the close 

in the last section to sayings of v. 2 f. parallelism in the form of these 

The ' leaven of the Pharisees ' is sayings. It is more exact in Mt. 


KOI o Trpbs TO oi><? e\a\r)(raTG ev rot? rapelois 

7rl TWV BcofACtTcov. Aerya) Be VfMV ro?9 </>/Xot9 yu-ov, fir} ^>o/3r}- 4 
a-Tro TWV airoKTeivovTcov TO (T&fjia teal fjLera, ravra prj 
Trepia-aoTepov TI Troiija-cu. VTroBeu^a) Be vfuv Tiva 5 
' (j)ofttf0'r)T6 TOV per a TO airoKTelvau e%ovTa e^ovcriav 
ejj,[3a\elv et9 TVJV yeevvav vai, Xeyo) vfuv, TOVTOV (j>o(3r]6r]T. 
V^L irevTe o~Tpov0ta iroiKovvTai a<T<rapi(ov Bvo ; KOI ev e% 6 
OVK CGTLV e7Ti,\e\r}a-jj,evov evcoTTtov TOV 0eov. a\\a KOI 7 

al Tpt^e? Tt}? KefyaKris VJJLWV Trdcrai, rjpW/A'rji'Tai,' p,r) 

GTpovdiwv Bta(f>epeT6. Aeyco Be vfuv, Tra? 09 av 8 
6fJbo\oy)](Tei> ev epol ejATrpoaQev TWV dvQpcoTroov, KOL 6 v 109 TOU 

where ev ro*s ra/zetois is not found 6. God, against whom they are to 

and ei/ TW <om follows the verb, ev fear to transgress, cares for the 

rots ra/Aetots is probably a Lucan destiny of the humblest of his 

addition to make an antithesis to creatures, and the disciples are worth 

eTrt TWV Sto/iaTwi/. dv&' &v"] Not many such. He will therefore care 

in Mt. Also found Lk. i. 20, xix. for them. 

44 ; Ac. xii. 23. Besides this in TTCVTC (rrpovOia . . . da-vaptwv Suo] 

N.T. only 2 Thess. ii. 10. The difference from Mt. is curious : 

4. rots <tA,ois [MOV] Not in the Svo o-Tpovflta d<r<raptov x. 29. 

par. in Mt. Here only in the OVK ecmv , . . TOV Beov] Mt. is 

synoptists are the disciples spoken more pictorial and, doubtless, more 

of as ' the friends-' of Jesus. But original : ov irea-eirai ITTI TT)I/ yyjv avev 

of. Jo. xv. 14. TOV Trarpbs i)/zwi/. IJ/WTTCOI/ is dist. 

5. vTToSeb^tj) . . . <po/3rfdrJTe] Not in Lucan. OVK evrw eiriXeXrivnevov has 
Mt. The same phrase (iiTroSe^w vfj.iv) a literary flavour. 

is found in Lk. vi. 47, where, as here, 7. An hyperbole, ovx oYi TO.S 

it is prob. editorial. The meaning is rpt'x.s o Oeb<s dpiO^ei. Chrys. Cf. 

that they are to fear God. I Regn. xiv. 45 ; 2 Regn. xiv. 1 1 ; 

epf3aX.eLV eis rr/v yeevvav] The only 3 Regn. i. 52 ; Lk. xxi. 18 ; Ac. xxvii. 

mention of Gehenna in Lk. Mt. 34. 

is more realistic : God has power 8-9. 6/zoA,oye?i/ ev] An undoubted 

to destroy body and soul in Gehenna. Semitism. Cf. Moulton, Prol. p. 

On Gehenna in Jewish theology cf. 104. The meaning is 'confess me.' 

S.B.,vol. iv.,2 Exkurs. 31, pp. 1022 f. ev epol . . . tu o vio<s TOV dvOpw- 

Gehenna appears suddenly in the TTOV] Here, as in Mk. viii. 38 ( = 

apocalyptic lit. of the 2nd cent. B.C. as ix. 26 supra), the form of the saying 

the place of punishment of apostate is compatible with an interpretation 

Israelites after the last judgement, which distinguishes between, or at 

Already in pre-Christian times it has least does not explicitly identify, 

come to be regarded as the abode of Jesus and the Son of Man. He 

the godless in the intermediate state, who confesses Jesus upon earth will 

as well as after the judgement. ' be confessed by the Son of Man 

va.1 Aeyco KT/\.] Not in Mt. before God. In Mt. x. 32, on the 


avOpwirov opoKoyrja-eu eV avrw efiirpoffOev rwv dyyeXwv rov 

9 deov' o Be apvrjadfjLevo^ //,e evwiriov rwv dvOpoo'rrwv dirapvr}- 

IO Orjcrerai evcoTTtov rwv ayye\wv rov Oeov. Kal Tra? 09 epei 

\oyov et9 rov vlov rov avOputTrov, afyeOrjcrerai avru)' ru> Be 

I I et9 TO ayiov TTvev/jia ftXao-^rjfjbrfo-avri, OVK a(f>e9r)o-era,L. "Qrav 

Be elcrfyepUHTiv vfj,a<; eVt T9 a~vvaya)ya<; KOU, r9 a/>%9 KOL 

T9 e'oi/cr/a9, fj,r) fjLepifMvrjo-ijre 7TW9 [$ ri\ tiTroXoyrjo-rjo-de r) ri 

12 eiTnjre' TO yap ayiov TTvevfJLa BiBdj;ei v^a^ ev avrfj ry wpa 

__ t \P>5 f-l"? ^/ 5 <>1/-v > 

1 3 a oet et,7TLV. &i7rei> oe Tt9 e/c TOU o^A-ou avra) 

At8ao";aXe, etTre T&> dBeXtyto fjiov jnepicrao'dai, per efjiov rr 
14 K\r)povofjiLav. 6 Be elirev avrw "Ay^pwTre, Tt9 yu.e 
ii TTWS [77 rt] om 77 rt D 157 lat.vt syr.cur aeth Clem Orig 

-other hand, the first personal pro- 
noun is used in both clauses. This 
may be editorial, but it is not im- 
possible that Mt. gives the earlier 
form, and that Son of Man here 
replaces a more primitive 'I.' The 
function ascribed to the heavenly 
Son of Man in this text is note- 
worthy: he is not here judge, as 
in Mk. viii. 38 and, more clearly, 
in Mt. xvi. 27, but rather the advo- 
cate of the faithful before God. rwz/ 
ayyeAwi/ TOV 6e.ov\ i.e. at the last 
judgement. Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
p. 157, holds that ayyeAwi/ is here 
used as a periphrasis for 'God,' 
and that Oeov is prob. not part of 
the original saying. 

10. The interpretation of this 
verse is difficult. The verse pre- 
ceding does not prepare us for the 
view that speech against the Son of 
Man is venial. Substantially the 
same saying occurs in Mt., but 
in a different context (xii. 32, the 
Beelzebub pericope). It may be 
presumed to come from Q. In 
Mt. the Q saying has been con- 
flated with the similar saying 
from the Marcan version of the 
Beelzebub controversy (iii. 28, 29). 
In Mk. (reproduced in Mt. xii. 31) 

there is no mention of blasphemous 
speech against the Son of Man. It 
is said, " All things shall be forgiven 
to the sons of men," etc. Wellh. con- 
jectures that Mk. and Mt. xii. 31 
preserve the original form of the 
saying, and that ' the sons of men ' 
has been transformed by misread- 
ing or misunderstanding into ' the 
Son of Man.' Luke perhaps intends 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
to be interpreted by the following 
verses : the unforgivable sin is to 
be untrue to the testimony which 
the Holy Spirit will put into the 
mouth of the disciples. 

1 1 -12. A close parallel to Mk. 
xiii. n=Mt. x. 19 f. and Lk. xxi. 
14 (where see note). 

13. Wellh. refers to the common 
oriental custom of referring questions 
of disputed right in secular affairs to 
a religious authority. 

14. Cf. Ex. ii. 14 TI'S ere 

A rare word. See M.M. 
s.v. Here only in the Greek Bible. 
Jesus declines the role of arbitrator. 
His refusal is made the occasion 
of a warning against covetousness. 
But the connexion, which is not 
very close, is perhaps to be ascribed 


ea-Tfjcrev icpirrjv rj ftepKTTrji* (f) vfj,a$ ; elirev Be TT/OO? avrovs 15 
'Opdre /cal <f>v\d(r(re(r0e OLTTO TTWCTT;? TrXeove^ias, ort OVK ev 

TU> Trepicrcreveiv Tuvl r) far) avrov ecrrlv etc T&V 
avrcp. / Qlvrev Be TrapafBoXrjv irpos avrovs \eycov 'AvOpwTrov 1 6 
rtvo? TT\OV<TLOV ev(f)6pr)(76v TI %WjO. teal Bie^oyL^ero eV a\)Tu> 17 
\eycov Tt TTOirjorw, ori OVK e^o> irov avvd^w TOV? Kapirovs 
/JLOV ; teal elirev TOVTO Trot^crw Ka6e\w /AOV ra? dTrodrjKas 1 8 
jieifyvas OLKoSofju^cra), ical crvva%w e/cei Trdvra TOV alrov 
TO, dyaOd IJLOV, KCU e'pw rf} ^r-v^ pov ^EV^, e^et? 19 

dyaOd [Keu/jieva et? err) TroXXa' dvairavov, <j)d<j6, Trie], 
evfypaivov. elirev Be avru> o ^eo? "A<j)p(ov, ravTrj rfj WKTl 2O 

aov alrovcriv diro crov m a Be r/Toi/jtacras, TLVL 
[Oyrcy? 6 Orja-avpifav avrw KOI /jurj et9 Oeov irKov- 21 
TMV,~\ / EtTrev 8e TT^OO? TOU? //.a^ra? [auroi)] Ata 22 

19 Keifjieva . . . irie om D lat.vt 21 versum om Dab 22 airou om Bee 

to the evangelist rather than to is introduced by Lk. into the Marcan 

tradition. version. 

15. 'Where man has abundance, 19. Wellh. and Blass prefer to ) 

yet is not his life constituted by follow the shorter text of D etc. / 

his possessions.' The fuller reading is closely similar 

16-21. The folly of absorption in to Tobit vii. 10 Kal eiTrev Tayoin^A. 

the goods 'of this life, in view of its TT/JUS Tw/8etav ^fraye, Trie /<at ^Secos 

brevity and uncertainty, shewn by yivov. Cf. also the advice to man 

a story. Parallels to the sentiment from the tomb of Sardanapalus cerate, 

from classical writers are given in 7r?i/e, o^eve (Wendland, Hell. Rom. 

Wettstein. There may be reminis- Kultur 3 , p. 290), and Eur. Aid 788 

cence of Ecclus. xi. 18 f. (Heb.). evfypawt cravrov, TrtW, TOV KO.&' 

Klostermann notes that this parable r}/z^oai/ | fiiov Xoyifav arov. 

differs from most of the parallels in 20. CU'TOUCTIJ/] Semitic impersonal 

that here the story does not begin plural, equivalent to a passive. 

with the man's efforts to collect 21. The authenticity of the verse 

wealth. It starts with a picture must be regarded as doubtful. It 

of prosperity. provides a transition to the discourse 

The word is found which follows, p) et's &eov TrAoimui/] 

Jos. JB.J. ii. 21. 2, but here only in i.e. who fails to lay up an abiding 

the Greek Bible. treasure with God in heaven (v. 33). 

17-19. The man's self-communings 22-32. The attitude of the disciples 

are portrayed, ri TTOLT/O-II), on OVK in face of human needs is to be con- 

. . . KOI elirev ToGro Trot^cro/] Cf. ditioned by an overmastering con- 

xvi. 3 ri Trotvycrco ort . . . zyvwv ri fidence in God's providence. Anxiety 

7roMJ(ra> (the Unjust Steward), and for food and raiment cripples insight 

2f,x. 13 where a similar ejaculation, into the true nature of life and body 

ascribed to the Lord of the Vineyard, which food and raiment are meant 


TOVTO Xeyo) V/JLIV, /j,r) juLepi/Avare rfj ^v^y TL <f>dyr}Te, 

23 TW (TW/JLCLTL \yfiwv\ TL evSvo-rjcrOe. r) <yap ^frv^ij irKelov ecrnv 

24 T?)? Tpo(j)rj<s KOL TO aw pa TOV eVSf/aTO9- KaravorfcraTe TO 1/9 

OTL ov cnrelpovaiv ovSe Oepi^ovcrw, 049 OVK ecmv 
ouSe dirodriKr), teal 6 #609 rpefyet, avTOVS' 7roo~q> 

25 /J,a\\ov v/jbeis b~La<f)epeTe rwv Trereivwv. rt? Se e 
fjuepipvwv &vi>aTai eVt T^Z/ r\\iKiav avrov TrpoaQelvai 

26 el ovv ovSe eXa^tcrroz/ Svva(r6e, TL irepl rwv XOATTWZ/ 

27 vare; Karavo^a-are ra Kpiva TTW? av^dveu* ov KOTTLO, ovSe 
vr)6ei' \eyay Be vyCiv, ov$ ^o\ofjb(t)v ev Trdarrj rrj ^0^77 avrov 

28 7repief3d\6TO w? ev TOVTWV. el be ev djpw rbv ^oprov OVTCL 

avpiov elf K\i(3avov (3aX\6/Jivov 6 

22 crw/iart] add vfjuav ( = Matt vi 25) B al a aegg 26 et GUI' . . . \otirwv] 

Trepi rtav XOITTWV rt D lat.vt 27 av^aret ou /co?ria ovSe vyQei ( = Matt vi 28)] 

oure vydei ovre u^atvet D a syr.vt Clem Tert 

to serve. God feeds the birds and 
clothes the flowers. He will not 
do less for his human family. The 
freshness and originality of these 
words cannot be mistaken. For a 
just interpretation it is necessary 
to remember that Jesus and his 
disciples did not belong to 'the 
leisured classes,' and, in their applica- 
tion, that Jesus endorsed the popular 
judgement that the labourer is worthy 
of his hire (x. 7). 

24. ot? OVK eWi KrA.j Mt. more 
graphically ouSe crvvdyovo-iv ets O.TTO- 

25-26. Verse 26 has no parallel in 
Mt. ?repi TOJV XonrCw is weak and 
the verse may probably be regarded 
as an addition interpretative of v. 25. 
Verse 25 stands in the same place 
in the discourse in Mt. vi. 27 and 
therefore comes from Q. But it 
interrupts the balance of the verses, 
and it may be plausibly conjectured, 
with Bultmann, that community of 
idea (/xepi/Aj/wv) with vv. 22 f. has at 
some stage in the literary history 
attracted the saying into a setting 

where it is not originally at home. 
ITTI Tijv f]X.LKiav TrpoorOeivai irrixyv\ 
r)Xu<ia must here mean 'age' not 
'stature,' and TT^VS must be used 
metaphorically of a span of time. A 
cubit would be a large addition to a 
man's height, but the context demands 
that the addition should be small. This 
is clearly assumed by Lk. in v. 26. 
The use of a measure of length for 
a period of time is a very natural 
metaphor and may be illustrated 
from Ps. xxxix. 5 (Heb.), " Behold, 
thou hast made my days hand- 
breadths." For the use of TT^X^S to 
signify a short period of time of. 
Mimnermus (Bergk, Poet. Lyr. Gr. ii. 
26),rots ( 


27. The reading of D etc. is prob. 
to be preferred to the reading in the 
text, which has perhaps been assimi- 
lated to Mt. 

28. els i<Xi[3avov\ i.e. for fuel. 
Phryn. clvi. i<A.i/3a.vo<s OVK epets, dA.A.a 
Kpifiavos Sta rov p. But /cAt'/Javos 
occurs in Hdt., See Rutherford 
ad loc. 


teal v//,et9 

tyreire ri tydyrjre KOI ri irLijre, KOL arj fAerewpi^ecrOe, ravra 30 
yap irdvra ra Wv 1 *) rov /cocr/zou irciQf]rovcriv> vawv $6 b 
irarrjp olSev on xpy^ere rovrcov TT\^V fyretre rrjv (3aat- 3* 
\eiav avrov, KOI ravra irpoa-redrja-erat, v[uv. fi>r) <f>oj3ov, 32 
TO fJULKpov TToi/jbviov, OTt vBoKf]cri' o TTarrjp vfjiwv Bovvai, 
vfuv rrjv jBa&tXeiav. IIft)7u?craTe ra virdp^ovra v^wv /cal 33 
Sore ekerifjLoa-vvrjv Troirjtrare eavrols fia\\dvna /Mr) ira'kaiov- 
/jieva, drja'avpov dveKkeiirrov ev rots ovpavois, OTTOV /cXeTrr^? 
OVK eryyl^ei ovBe (7775 SiaffrOelpei,' OTTOU yap <rriv o Orjcravpb? 34 
s, Kei teal fj KapSia VJJLWV ecrrai. "Ecrrcucraz/ VJJL&V at 3 5 

29. //.>} /zrew/)i^eo-^e] Lk. only. Parousia for the disciples, is the 

Mt. continues ?} ri 7repi/3aXwfj.e0a; motive for unworldliness recognized 

and this is prob. original. Trans. 'Be in vv. 16-21, and Lk. intends this 

not anxious in mind.' This meaning to form the transition to the sayings 

is attested both for literary and in vv. 22 f. 

colloquial Greek. See Preuschen- 32 is peculiar to Lk. 

Bauer, s.v. The interpretation of 33, 34 have parallels in Mt. vi. 19- 

the Vulg. ' in sublime tolli ' is pos- 2 1 where they precede the Matthaean 

sible in itself (of. 2 Mace. v. 17 and equivalent of vv. 22-31 supra. Verse 

elsewhere) but does not give a good 34 is almost identical with Mt. vi. 21 

sense here. (ly/.covforcro'u). Verse 33 is consider- 

31-32. Tr/joo-re^r/o-erat vfuv] After ably different. For the negative 

these words Mt. proceeds (vi. 34) exhortation in Mt., "Lay not up 

to the saying 'Take no thought for for yourselves treasure upon the 

the morrow,' etc., and with that earth," etc., we have the positive 

closes the section. This last verse of instruction : " Sell your possessions 

Mt. is lacking in Lk. Lk. takes up and give alms" (of. xviii. 22). The 

the word (3a(ri\eia, and passes on ascetic colouring is thus heightened. 

to the thought of the heavenly The heavenly purses which do not 

kingdom which the- Father will wear out are peculiar to Luke, and 

bestow upon the little flock of the are perhaps his own addition. fiaX- 

disciples. Therefore the disciples Aai/ria] Lucan only in N.T., cf. x. 4, 

must wean their hearts from earthly xxii. 35, 36. The Matthaean version 

possessions, and must be ready at of the saying is rhythmical and 

all times lest they be taken unawares, observes the structure of parallelism. 

From here onwards the thought of Here as elsewhere (cf. vi. 40, 46 f., 

the Parousia is dominant, but it xiii. 24) Luke breaks the Semitic 

is doubtful whether it should be parallelism. 

regarded as the controlling thought 35-38. The expectation of the 

of the preceding verses (22 f.) either Lord's return does not paralyse 

in their original form or in their energy. The imperatives call up a 

Lucan setting. The imminence of fine picture of preparedness. The 

death for the individual, not of the long eastern robe must be caught up 


36 cogues 7rep(,efoo-fj,ei>ai KOL ol \V^VOL Kaiopevoi, KOI tyxet<? 
o/xotot avO pu)Troi<$ TrpocrSefto/Aevois TOV Kvpuov eavr&v Trore 
dva\va"r) etc. rwv yd/uwv, 'iva e\6ovTO<s KOI Kpovaravros evQews 

37 dvoi^QHTiv avra>. fjiaitdpioi ol SovXot eicelvoL, 01)9 e\6cov 6 
Kvpios vpr)(Ti yptjyopovvras' d/jLijv Xejca VJJLLV OTI 

TCLI KOL dvafcXivei CLVTOVS Kai 7rape\dcov OICLKOVIJCTGI, 

38 KCLV eV rf] Sevrepa KCLV ev rfj rpirr) fyvXaKrj ekOy KOL evpy 

39 otmw?, fiaKapioL elcnv eicelvoi. rovro Be yivuxTtcere on el 

6 otVoSeo-TTOTT/? Troia wpa o K\e7rrrj<; ep^eraL, eyprfyo- 
av KOL OVK d<j)fJKv ^Lopv^drjvai TOV OLKOV avrov. 

40 fcal vfjieis yive&Oe eroifjioi, OTI y wpa ov So/cetre o ut'o? TO 

38 KO.V ev rr\ Seurepa . . . evpr) .ourws] praern KCH eai/ e\di) rt] fffirepivr) 0tAa/c?7 Kat 
evp-rj ourws TTOLOVVTO.^ (ia.Ko.pi.ot. etffiv OTI ava.K\ivei avrovs KO.I bianovriffei. avrois I etc 
ff 2 i 1 syr.cur Iren(lat) : habent soluni KU eav eXG-q TT\ fairepivT] (bvKa.Kri KO.L eupycret. 
OVTWS ironjfffi Kat eav ev TTJ 8evrepa Kai TT/J rpiTtj Doe, aliter etiam inter se diff codd 
et verss 39 eypriyopr)(rei> av /cat au/c] OVK av #D e i syr. vt arm sah cotld Tert 

40 versum om i etc 

round the waist if it is not to hinder behind. But the picture centres' 

action. Cf . the metaphorical applica- upon the feast vvhich the returned 

tion of the action in i Pet. i. 13. Lord will make for his servants. 

This section is peculiar to Luke, but ;<ai Kpovo-avTos] Here, as in Rev. 

it very likely corresponds to a iii. 20, it is Christ who knocks. In 

passage of Q. The ' lights burning ' xiii. 25 and in the parable of the Ten 

in v. 35 recall the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is others who knock that 

Virgins in Mt. xxv. which follows Christ may open ; cf. also supra. 

the sayings given here vv. 39 f. The 37. The Lord himself will serve 

parable of the Ten Virgins is probably his servants, cf. Mk. x. 45 and infra 

not one of the more primitive ele- xxii. 27. We have perhaps here 

ments of the Gospel (see Wellhausen's the source of the great scene of the 

subtle analysis, Ev. Matt. pp. 128 f.), feet-washing at the Last Supper in 

but it may utilise a motif which Jo. xiii. 

stood in Q. A closer parallel to 38. The three watches correspond 

this section is Mk. xiii. 32 f., and as to Jewish usage, as against the 

Luke substituted another conclusion Roman division of the night into 

(xxi. fin.) to the eschatological dis- four watches, cf. Mk. xiii. fin. The 

course from Mk. xiii., he very likely second and third watches are men- 

himself regarded Mk. xiii. 33 f. and tioned to enhance the zeal of the 

this passage as variants. faithful watchers, who, if need be, 

36. K TOJJ/ yd/j-iai'] The marriage will remain at their post till the 

feast is not here significant, yd/xot night is past. 

may be used simply for a feast. So 39-46. These verses occur in the 

in Esther ii. 18, ix. 22, and perhaps same order in Mt. xxi v. 43-51. After 

here. It represents the joys of heaven the first saying Luke has interpolated 

which the returning Messiah leaves a question from Peter which has the 

crr^cret CLVTOV. 



avO pwTrov Spheral. E^irev 8e o Herpos Kvpte, Trpo? ^yu-ci? 41 
rrjv 7rapa/3o\r)v ravrrjv X^yet? f) teal Trpo? rrdvra<$; Kal elrrev 42 
6 Kvpio? Tt? ap ea-rlv 6 TUG-TO? OLKOVO/JLO^, o <pp avisos, bv 
Karaa-rrjcrGi, 6 Kvpios eVt T?7<? Oepaireias avrov rov SiSovai 
eV Kaipqy [TO] (Tiro^kroiov ; fjiaKapios 6 SovXo? eKelvos, 01/43 
o Kvpios avrov evprfcret rroiovvra OVT&)?' aX^^w? 44 
Tracriv rot? virdp'^ova'iv avrov KCLTCL- 
Be eiTry 6 SoOXo9 eiceivos ev ry KapSia 45 
avrov Xpovifai, 6 Kvpios /JLOV ep^eadai, KOI ap^rau rv- 
Trrew TOV? TratSa? /cal r9 Trat&tWa?, ecrOleiv re teal rcive.iv 
ical fJLe6va'Ke<s6aL i rj^ei o Kvpios rov SovXov HKGIVOV ev 4^ 
rjfjiepa TI ov 'Trpoa'SoKa fcal ev wpa y ov <yiV(tHrKL, Kal BL^O- 
ro/jbrjaet, avrov Kal TO /ie/oo? avrov p,era r&v arricrrwv 
0r)(Ti. 6/ceLVos $e 6 SovXo? o fyvovs TO Oekrifia rov tcvpiov 47 

42 om TO BD 69 

effect of directing the sayings which is not known from other literary 

follow to Peter and the other apostles, documents, but is quoted from 

the future rulers of the Church. The papyri. See M.M. For the vb. 

application is made clearer in Lk. o-iTofter/3etV of. Gen. xlvii. 12, 14. 

by the reading OI'KOI/O/ZOS 'steward' in 45. TOVS TratSa? KCU ras TraiStcrKas] 

v. 42 in place of SouXos (Mt.). Mt. rows crvv8ov\ov<s. Lk. alters 

41. enrei/ Se 6 Herpes] A tendency, this to conform with his substitution 

itself due to genuine Tiistorical im- of OIKOVO/XOS for SovAo? above (v. 42). 

pression, can be recognised in the The otKoi/o/xos is himself a SouAos 

Gospel writers to make Peter spokes- (v. 45), but Lk. is anxious to bring 

man for the apostles; cf. Mt. xv. 15 out his superiority in .office to the 

with Mk. vii. 17. other. servants. 

T^V7ra/)tt/?oA?)j/TaTJTr;i/] The refer- TrouSar/cas] Cf. Phryn. ccxvi. TTGU- 

ence is probably not to be confined SLCTKIJ TOVTO e/rt TT)S 6e.paTru.lvr)<s ol 

to the two verses immediately vvv ruOtacrtv, ol 8' dp^aiot eVt 

preceding, but should include the i/eai/tSos. 

promises of v. 37. Is this blessedness 46. St^oro^rycret] To be taken 

reserved for the apostles, or is it for literally ; cf . I Par. xx. 3 ; Amos i. 3 ; 

all faithful disciples? In answer Horn. Od. xviii. 339; Suet. Calig. 27. 

Jesus gives the warnings and promises 

especially appropriate to the apostles. 

/mera TU>V ttTriVnoi/] Mt. 
TWI/ iVo/c/otrcov. Lk. is prob. 

42. $epa7ret'as] In the sense of secondary. voi<pir^ thrice only 
' household,' ' body of servants,' in Lk. 

47-48. Peculiar to Luke. The 
situation of the servants in these 
verses is other than that of the 

here only in N.T. (Mt. otWems). 
Class. Cf. Gen. xlv. 16 e^ap?; Se 
cu /cat t] Oepaireia O.VTOV. 

Prob. Lk.'s substi- > steward of the preceding verses who 
v (Mt.). The noun has been set by his master over the 


tute for 


avrov KOI //,?) eroifjbdcras rj TT our) era? 7r/>o9 TO 




48 rov Saptfa-erai, 7roAA,a9' o Se 
TrXrjfywv Saprfcrerai o\i<ya<$. iravri Be 
r)rr)6ij(rerai, Trap 1 avrov, KOL co irapeOevro irokv, 

49 repov air ijcr over iv avrov. Hvp rf\6ov fiaKelv eVt rr)v yrjv, 

50 /cat ri 0e\a) el 77897 avr)^>6i). (^airridp.a Be e%a) ftaTma-Of)- 

51-53 have a parallel in Mt. x. 34-36 
(the charge to the Twelve). Verses 
49-50 are peculiar to Luke. 

49. irvp ^X.0ov /^aAetV] The fire 
must be a symbol for the division 
of which the subsequent verses speak. 
/?aAeti/ is not appropriate to spiritual- 
ising interpretations of the ' fire,' 
e.g. the fire of holiness (suggested by 
Plummer), or the fire of faith (Zahn). 
Nor would Jesus speak of himself as 
casting the fire of the judgement 
(Klostermann). fta.kf.iv is used as 
the verb with /j,d)^aipav in the 
parallel to v. 5 1 in Mt. x. 34. Perhaps 
here as there it comes from Q 

ri 6*eAw et . . .] It is best not to 
punctuate (as W.H.) with a question 
mark. Translate ' How earnestly 
I wish that . . .' The verse then 
falls into place and makes a good 
parallel to v. 50. For TL with the 
force of an exclamation (representing 
Heb. HD) cf. 2 Regn. vi. 20 ri 
SeSoaoTat o-ry/xepoj/ 6 /JourtAevs 
'Icrpa^A, and see Preuschen-Bauer 
s.v. TI'S. For et after <9eAco with the 
force of ' that ' cf . Is. ix. 5, Ecclus. 
xxiii. 14. Christ wishes that the fire 
were already kindled, because it must 
needs be so before the kingdom of 
God can come. 

50. ^ttTrncr/xa Se e'xw /\ 
i.e. the baptism of death as in Mk. 
x. 38 (not reproduced in Lk.). 
The metaphor of troubles over- 
whelming the soul as with a flood is 
found in the Psalter, cf. Pss. xlii. 7> 
Ixix. 2. i<al TTWS crvj/e^o^at] The 
whole of the Lord's life until the 

household. The present connexion 
is no doubt secondary. Perhaps 
Luke intends to carry on the thought 
of the responsibility of the leaders of 
the Church. The leaders, who know, 
will, if unfaithful, be more severely 
punished than others who have not 
had their opportunities. The prin- 
ciple is that enunciated by Amos iii. 
2. Wellh. suggests that the contrast 
originally in mind was, as in Amos, 
between Jews and heathen. Jiilicher 
prefers to suppose the original refer- 
ence was to scribes and unlettered 

Klostermann takes 48a as in the 
nature of a parenthesis and regards 
48b as a general statement affirming 
the principle of 47. The two clauses 
of 48b then mean practically the 
same thing. irepuro-oTepov answers 
grammatically toTroAu, but the forceof 
the comparative is not to be pressed, 
But this seems to obscure the force 
of the whole for which the contrast 
between 6 yvovs and o p) yvm's is 
essential. If this contrast governs 
48b, then TrepicrcroTepov will mean 
' more than from those to whom less 
had been given.' Then the two 
clauses of 48b answer to 47 and 48a 
respectively, except that the second 
clause of 4&b somewhat awkwardly 
states the principle of the 'few 
stripes' by saying positively that 
of the better endowed more is 

49-53. The thought of the judge- 
ment perhaps suggests the idea of 
the trials through which Jesus and 
his disciples must first pass. Verses 


vat, /cal TTW? o~vve%o/jiaL e&>9 orov Te\ecr6f). SOKCLTC OTL 5 1 
elpijvrjv 'irapeyevofji'rjv Bovvat, ev ry <yfj ; ov%i, \eja> vfjilv, 
XX' rj ^ia^epia^ov, ea-ovrai jap UTTO TOV vvv irevre ev $2 
evl OiKti) Biape/jbepLcrfjievoi, rpeis eVl Bvcrlv real Bvo eVl 
rpucriv, Bia/jbepta-OrjarovTai, Trarrjp eVl viw /cal \\6c eni n<vrpf, 53 
fAr/T^p eVt dvjarepa /cal eynvrHp eni THN MHTC'PA, irevOepa 
eVl rrjv vv^fjv avrfjs /cal NYMCJJH eni THIN neN0ep<(N. 
"EiXeyev Be /cal rofc o^Xot? e/ Orav iS^jre vetyeXyv avareX- 54 
\ovcrav eVl Sva-jjL&v, evOeco? \eyere OTL "Opfipos ep^eraL, 
KOL <yiverai OUTOO?' /cal orav VOTOV Trveovra, \eryere OTL 55 
Kavcrcov ecrrat, /cal ^LveTai. vTroicpiTai, TO Trpoa-wirov Trjs $6 
<y?}? /cal TOV ovpavov ol'Sare So/cifjideLV, TOV icaipov Se 
TOVTOV TTW? OVK oi$aT6 SoKifjid^eiv ; Tt Be /cal a(j) eavT&v 57 
ov KpiveTe TO Bi/caiov ; a>9 jap virdjeis ftera TOV dvTiBi/cov 5 8 

end comes is spent in trials, cf. 
xxii. 28. 

51. Sovran,] Mt. /3aAeti/ as Lk. 
above in v. 49. Soui/ou is more appro- 
priate to the abstract Siayue/otoyAoi/ 
which represents /j.dx (U P av (Mt.). 

52. Trevre kv evl OIKW] Of the six 
members of the household mentioned 
in the next verse irevOepd and p-fjTijp 
are the same person. This verse 
is not represented in Mt. and is 
probably an amplification, drrb TOV 
vvv is Lucan. 

53. Micah vii. 6. In Micah and 
Matthew it is the younger generation 
which rises against the older. But 
in Lk. the hostility is represented as 

54-56. The thought of the judge- 
ment is still predominant. Jesus 
now addresses the multitudes. They 
can discern the face of nature : they 
ought also to be able to discern the 
age. The saying is similar in content 
though different in form from the 
saying interpolated at Mt. xvi. 2-3. 
In the latter the natural tokens are 
different : a red sky at night and a 
red sky in the morning. 

57. This reads as if it were an 
editorial insertion to make con- 


5 I > C 

eavTiov] Connects both with 
what precedes and with what follows : 
they should be able to see of them- 
selves what the time calls for. If 
they do not, of themselves, act in 
time as the time requires, they will 
fall under the condemnation of the 

K/jii/erc TO Si'/cator] ' give a just 
judgement.' For the phrase cf. an 
inscr. from Amorgos, B.C.H. 25 
(1901), p. 416; Deissmann. Light 
from the East*, p. 117. 

58-59. Parabolic. A wise man in 
ordinary life settles accounts with 
his enemy before he becomes liable 
to the jurisdiction of the judge. The 
same wisdom is called for in face of 
the approaching judgement of God. 
The same saying appears also in Mt. 
v. 25-26, where, however, it is used 
quite otherwise : instead of a parable, 
the saying becomes in Mt. a direct 
precept: viz. be reconciled with 
your adversary, for he, it is implied 
by the context, is your brother, 


crov CTT' ap%ovra, ev ry o5c3 09 epyacriav ttTn/XXa^ 
avrov, fjirf irore KCLTacrvpr] ere TTpbs TOV KpiTr^v, KCLL o 
ere TrapaSwcrei TW vrpaKTOpi, KOI o Trpd/crfop are fiaXel 
59 (j)V\aKijv. Xe<y( croi, ov ^ e^eXOys eiceWev e&)9 KOI TO 

ecr^aTov \eirrov aTroSw?. 

XIII. I Tlapijaav Be rives ev avrw TO> Kcupu> aTra^^yeXXoz/re? avrw 
Trepl TWV Takikatwv &v TO alpa Tlei\aTO<} efju,%ev fjiera TWV 

2 Ovffiwv avrwv. KOL airoKpiQels el'jrev avrots Ao/cetre ort ol 
Ya\L\aloi OVTOL dfjLapra)\ol Trapa Traz/ra? TOV? Td\t\aiovs 

3 eyevovro, on ravra TreTrovOaa-iv ; ov%i, 'Xeya) vfuv, aXX' eav 

4 fir} fjueravorfTe Trdvres o/Aotw? diro\elarOe. T) etcelvoi ol Se/ca 

OKTCO e'' ot9 7reo-ev 6 TTvjof iv Tc3 ^L\wdji KOI cnreKTeivev 

58 ora O.TT B 

against whom you must harbour upon a riotous, assembly of Jews, 

no hostile thought. but this does not answer to the 

58. Sos epyaariav] Not in Mt. slaughtering of Galileans in the 

Equiv. to Lat. da operam. But the Temple Courts at Jerusalem which 

term had passed into the Greek ver- is here implied. Wellh. follows Beza 

nacular. Cf. Dittenberger, O.G.I.S. in suspecting a reference to the 

441. 109, and Deissmann, Light*, attack upon Samaritans on Mt. Geri- 

p. 1 1 6. zim which led to Pilate's recall 

Karaa-vp-tf] A more appropriate (Ant. xviii. 4. i). This event did 

term to use of the adversary than not take place until after the cruci- 

TrapaBiSo vou, which in Mt. is used both fixion of Jesus. 

of the adversary and of the judge. Traprjcrai/ 8e rives . . . uTrayyeA- 

Trpa/mo/)] A common Greek term Aovres] 'Some men came and brought 

for an official, particularly in con- tidings.' For Tra^et/xt in the sense 

nexion with finance. Here only in of 'to arrive' (class.) cf. Acts x. 21, 

N.T. Mt. has uTnyperr/s. and for the whole phrase cf. Diod. 

59. A.67TTOI/] Lk. avoids the vulgar Sic. xvii. 8. 2 yaprjcrdv rives aT 

KoSpavr^s (Mt.). yeAAovres 7roAAoi>s rQtv 'E 

I f. The thought of the judgement vewrepi^eii/. 

is still dominant, ei/ avry ro> /coupon 2. Tmvras] In the sense of ' all 

connects this paragraph closely with other Galileans.' Cf. iii. 20, xiv. 10. 

the preceding. Disasters which have 4. It is not remarkable that 

befallen individuals do not prove nothing should be known of this 

them to have been sinners above incident, which would have no politi- 

all men. A like fate awaits them cal significance. Zahn conjectures 

all, both Galileans and inhabitants that the accident was connected with 

of Judaea, unless they repent. Pilate's improvement of the water 

i. Nothing is known of the inci- supply, which, as it was financed 

dent here reported. Josephus records out of sacred monies, led to the dis- 

(Ant. xviii. 3. 2, B.J. ii. g. 4) a turbance mentioned by Jos. Ant. 

murderous attack by Pilate's soldiers xviii. 3. 2, B.J. ii. g. 4. The fall 


avrovs, Bo/celre on avrol o 
TOU9 dvO putTrovs rov<; 

eyevovro irapa 




"Et\eyev Be ravrijv rrjv TrapafioXyv. 6 

ev TO> 


ty]T&v Kapirov ev avry Kal ov% evpev. elirev Be TT/OO? 7 
rov Ufjb7re\oupry6i> 'I Sou rpia err] a<j> ov ep^ofjuat, ty)T&v 
KapTTov ev rrj <TVKVJ ravrrj real ov% evpiaKW eKKotyov avrrjv 
'iva TI Kal rrjv <y?jv tcarapyel; o Be airoicpt,6e\s \e<yei avrq) 8 
Kupte, a^>69 avrrjv Kal TOVTO TO era?, ea>9 orov aveai|ro0 irepl 
avrrjv teal {3d\(0 Koirpia' Kav fJbev Troirjorrj Kapirov et? TO 9 
p,e\\ov el Be /mrf'ye, eKKotyeis avrijv. 

8 Koirpia] Kofavov Koirptwv D lat.vt Orig(lat) 

of the tower in Siloam is an anticipa- short period for repentance. Wellh., 

tion of the greater destruction which however, holds that the Jewish people 

threatens the whole city. must (as in Is. v.) be symbolised by 

5. Traces a7roAetcr#e] Here, as in the vineyard and interprets the fig- 

v. 3, it is not destruction in the tree of the individual. Zahn inter- 

world to come that is in mind, but prets the fig-tree of Jerusalem which 

the destruction of the nation. stands in the midst of Israel (the 

6-9. A parable peculiar to Luke, vineyard). For the idea of the par- 

It seems probable that Luke regarded able cf. iii. 9 supra, and Story of 

it as a substitute for the strange Ahikar, 8. 35 (Syr.), Charles, Pseud- 

story of the blasting of the fig-tree, epigr. ii. p. 775. 

to which Jesus came 'seeking fruit' 7. ISov rpiu, errf] Nom. Cf. v. 16 

and 'found none' (Mk. xi. I2f.), as infra and Mk. viii. 2. The constr. is 

he has omitted the latter at its Aramaic. Wellh. notes that Aramaic 

proper place. The position of the 
parable after the preceding narrative 
points to an interpretation of the 

has no word for ' already.' 

9. The apodosis is suppressed by 
an idiom, common in Semitic and 

fig-tree as symbolical of the Jewish well recognised in Greek. Cf. Blass, 
people, which is to be allowed yet a 78. 2. 


A miraculous healing which, like xiv. i infra and vi. 6 f . ( = Mk. iii. i f.), 
serves to illustrate the attitude of Jesus towards the Sabbath law. Here, 
as below (xiv. i f.), the argument is that if it is right to care for cattle on 
the Sabbath day, a fortiori it is right to relieve human distress. This principle 
is not asserted in Mark, but at Mt. xii. II a saying closely similar to Lk. xiv. 5 
has been interpolated into the Matthaean version of the Marcan miracle. 

This narrative may be grouped with the series of narratives the widow 


of Nam (c. vii.), the healing of the dropsical man (c. xiv.), the ten lepers 
(c. xvii.), Zacchaeus (c. xix.) which are peculiar to Luke, but which may be 
regarded as in some respects counterparts to narratives in Mark. Cf . Introd. 
p. Ixviii. Certain features may be noted as common to two or more of these 
narratives conspicuously the usage of 6 Kvpios of Jesus in narrative. This 
usage never occurs in the strictly Marcan passages in Luke, and may therefore 
with some probability be supposed to go back to Luke's source, unless we 
suppose the evangelist himself to be responsible for the actual composition 
of these stories. For another point of contact between this narrative and 
the narrative of Zacchaeus see v. 16 n. The somewhat conventional combina- 
tion of ideas and words in v. 13 KCU Trapa-^prjjjia a.v<ap6(i)6r) r i<al e<$oaei/ 
TOV 6eov, the play with the word Ai'co in vv. 15, 16, and the Biblical remini- 
scence in v. 17 (see note), help to give the impression that we have here to 
do with a more sophisticated type of writing than we find in Mark. 

It is hard to discover Etny community in idea with the preceding section. 
Loisy suggests that " the Fathers who saw the Church symbolized by the 
woman who was healed, as opposed to the unfruitful and proscribed fig-tree 
of the synagogue, have perhaps unintentionally hit upon the idea which 
has determined the arrangement of these fragments. The narrative of the 
Sabbath-day healing may then be a fictitious doublet of the Galilean narrative 
common to the three synoptists, as the young man of Nain is a doublet of 
Jairus's daughter, and it will have been placed in the direction of Samaria 
with the express purpose of symbolizing the salvation of the Gentiles" 
(p. 364). This must be pronounced quite unconvincing. Not one phrase 
or one word suggests the symbolism which Loisy .wishes to find. Yet in a 
general sense it may be true that Luke feels the story of a successful healing 
carried out in the face of Jewish opposition congenial to his recent theme of 
the judgement imminent upon the Jewish people. 

This is the only instance in which Jesus is represented as preaching in a 
synagogue during the latter part of his ministry. Wellhausen notes that 
it would be more natural to find such an incident recorded in connexion with 
Capernaum, rather than on a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. 

Luke has appended the two parables of the mustard-seed and the leaven, 
which he probably intends us to picture as delivered in the synagogue on the 
same occasion. How exactly the parables were intended originally it is hard 
to say, but the fundamental idea is unmistakable : how great results may 
come from how small beginnings ! Here, at any rate, Luke and his readers 
would probably think of the Gentile Church. 


9 Hz/ Se $t,$d(TKQ3V ev /ua rwv a-vvaywy&v ev rot? cra/9/3a- IO 
GUV. KOI IBov ryvvrj irvevfjia e^owa dadeveia^ err) Se/ca 1 1 
6rcT(0, ical rjv o-vvicvirrovcra KOI fjirj Bvva/jievrj dvaKv^ai et? 
TO TravreKes. IBoav Be avrrjv o 'Irj&ovs 7rpoo~<f)ci)vr)a'ev fcau 1 2 
elirev avry Fvvai, a-TroXeXucrat rrjs dvOeveias aov, KOL 1 3 
e7re0r]Kv avrfj ra<? ^eipa^' teal Trapa^prj/^a dvcopOwOr), KCLL 
eB6t~a%ev rbv Oeov, d i jrofcpcdel<; Be 6 dp^LO-vvdycoyo^, d<ya- 14 
VCLKT&V ore rw (rafSfidrw eflepdirevo'ev o 'I^o-oO?, e\e<yev rc5 
o^Xw ort '"'E^ fj/jiepai, elcrlv ev at? Set ep^d^ecrOai' eV aurat? 
ovv ep'xofievoL OepairevecrOe KCU fjirj ry 'fj/juepa rov <ra/3/3d- 
rov. direKpiOr) Be avrw 6 icvpios KOI elirev 'TTrotcpiral, 1 5 
e/catrro? VJJL&V r<a aaftftdrw ov \vei, rov (Sovv avrov rj rbv 
ovov drro rrj<$ <f>drvr)s /cat dird^wv Trort^et; r.avryv Be 1 6 
Owyarepa 'Afipaafj, ova-av, rfv eSqa-ev 6 Zaravas IBov BeKa 
Kal oKru> err), OVK e'Set \v0rjvaL avro rov Seo-fjbov rovrov rfj 
rjfjiepa rov craftftdrbv ; Kat ravra \eyovrof avrov /car- 1 7 
rjo-^yvovro rrdvres ol avritceifjievot avrw, /cal rcas o o^Xo? 
e^aipev eVt iraa-iv rot'; ev8ooi$ rot? ^ivo^evoi^ {JIT av- 
rov. ' H\eyev ovv Tivi opoia ecrrlv r] ftacrikeia 1 8 

II. Tri/eu/xa ao-^ei/et'as] i.e. a spirit parison proves, might be expected 

which caused weakness. The symp- to wait another day. The analogy 

toms of the possession are transferred between * loosing ' cattle from the 
to the spirit. . stall (Auet) and 'loosing' the woman 

/AT) Swaptv-r] . . . TravreAes] ' un- from her infirmity (X.v&fjvat) strikes 

able to lift herself up straight.' eis the reader as a trifle forced and 

TO TravTeAes goes with the infin. artificial. 

u.vaKvi[>ai, not with /A^ Swapevr) as 16. flvyarepa'AjSpau.}*] The phrase 

in vg. : "nee omnino poterat." For not elsewhere in N.T., but cf. xix. 9 

ets TO TravTeAes cf. Heb. vii. 25. Not (of Zacchaeus) KU^O'TI KO.I avrus vlbs 

elsewhere in N.T. 'A/fyaa/z. 

13. avoip6(i)9f]\ Good Greek. LXX. I8ov SCKO, /cat OKTW ertj] For the 

In N.T. here only (except quota- grammar cf. v. 7 supra. 

tions in Ac. xv. 16 and Heb. xii. 17. Ka.Tr)(r\vvovTo KT/\..] Cf. Is. 

12). xlv. 16 aicr^i'v^'/ycrovTat Kat !v- 

15-16. Montefiore complains of rpa-n-^a-ovrai TravTes ot dvTt;<et/xevot 

the logic of this answer. The aimp. 

cattle must certainly be watered 18. Note the parallelism of the 

daily, but their case is not ana- introduction. A similar form is 

logous to that of a woman who found in the introduction to the 

has been infirm for eighteen years* parable of the mustard seed in Mk. 

and therefore, for all that the com- iv. 30. 

1 9 TOV 6eov, KOL T'IVL ofMoitocrw avTijv ; ofioia ecrrlv KOKKM 

bv \a/3a>v av6pa)7ros eftaKev el<$ Kr\Trov eavrov, 

/cal rjvg'rjcrei' KOL e^evero els ev$pov, teal T< irereiN^ TOY 


2 I eiirev Tivi oynotwovw rrjv j3acri\eLav TOV 6eov ; o^oia ecrriv 
urj, YJV \a/3ovaa yvvrj e/cpw^rev els d\evpov adra rpla 
ov vM(t)0r) o\ov. 

19. Luke is here dependent upon amined by Streeter, pp. 246 f. He 

Q who must have given the parables concludes that Luke faithfully repro- 

of the mustard seed and of the duces Q and that ' almost every word ' 

leaven as a pair. Cf. Mt. xiii. 31-33. in Mt. comes either from Mk. or Q. 
The mustard seed but not the leaven 2 1 . This is almost exactly equiva- 

is given in Mk. iv. The mustard lent to Mt. xiii. 33. In this parable 

seed has been omitted by Lk. from leaven represents the operation of 

the Marcan source at viii. 18. The God's kingdom or of the preaching 

literary relations of the versions of of the kingdom. Elsewhere it is 

Mk., Lk. and Mt. are carefully ex- always symbolic of evil influences. 

THE ELECT (xiii. 22-35) 

A further collection of sayings to which parallels may be found in different 
parts of Matthew. The rejection of the Jews, the admission of the Gentiles, 
and the fate of Jerusalem are again the determining ideas. 

The present arrangement may be plausibly ascribed to the evangelist. 
The connexion between v. 24 and v. 25 depends upon the parabolic use of 
' the door,' which, however, is differently applied in the two sayings. At 
v. 28 Luke appears to have recast the saying in order to relate what follows 
to what precedes. The reply of Jesus when he is informed of Herod's designs 
is peculiar to Luke (vv. 31-33). See introd. to ix. 7-9 supra. It leads on to a 
lament over Jerusalem, which in Mt. xxiii. appears as a continuation of the 
denunciation which Luke has reproduced in xi. 49-51. It may be conjectured 
that Luke found it unsuitable for the setting at the feast in the Pharisee's 
house which he has provided for the precedent ' woes ' on the Pharisees, and 
has therefore attached it to the saying that " it cannot be that a prophet 
should perish out of Jerusalem." The present setting raises a grave difficulty 
of interpretation which the Matthaean setting avoids, cf. vv. 34, 35 n. 

22 Kcu ^Leiropevero Kara vroXet? KOI Kcb/Jias $L$d(TKwv 

23 Tropeiav Troiov/jievos et9 'Iepo(ru\vfj,a. Qinrev Se rt? 

22. We are again reminded some- 23-24. A similar saying is given by 
what abruptly that Jesus is on the Mt. vii. 13-14 but with a difference. 
road to Jerusalem. Lk. thinks of a narrow door (6vpa) 


Kvpie, el oXtyoi ol crw^ofjievot; o Se elirev Trpos avrovs 

elcre~k6elv Sia r?79 (rrevris Ovpas, ort iroXKoi, 24 
T^vovaiv elaekOelv real OVK l<r%v<rov<rtv. a<> 2$ 

6 ot/coSecrTTOTT;? Kal a r JTOK\eLo~r] TVJV 6vpav, 
e^co ecrrdvai, teal Kpovew rrjv 9vpav "Keyovres 
Kvpie, avoijfov rjfuv, Kal airoKpiOels epel vfjuv OVK olo~a 

irodev eorre* rare ap^ea-Oe heyeiv E<a<yo//,ez/ 26 
crov Kal eirlo/Jiev, Kal ev rat? TrXaretat? rjfMwv eBl- 
Kal epei Xeycav VJJLIV OVK oi$a iroOev ecrre* <\nd- 27 

CTHT6 AH' GMOY, H^NTGC e'pf^TM ^'AlKf^C. 'E/Cei eCTTttt 28 

K\avd/j,b<> Kal o /Bpvyfjuo^ TWV oSovrcov, orav 

ov av 


into a house, through which it is 
hard to enter; Mt., on the other 
hand, contrasts a broad road and a 
\vide city gate (TruA.?;) with a narrow 
road and a narrow gate. Streeter 
thinks that Mt. has here as elsewhere 
conflated Q and another source, and 
that the 'gate' in Mt. comes from Q 
and the ' road ' from Mt.'s special 
source(M). It is somewhat against this 
theory that the 'gate' is not attested 
by Lk., and that the ' gate ' and the 
' road ' harmonise well in one picture, 
Perhaps therefore Mt. here gives us 
a more original form of the saying, 
which Lk. has modified in order to 
bring the Ovpo. into connexion with 
the saying in v. 25. The question 
in v. 23 may be editorial in order to 
provide a setting for the subsequent 
sayings. It would naturally be sug- 
gested by the words which are given 
as the answer, especially if Lk. had 
read a longer form as in Mt. ; of. esp. 
Mt. vii. 14 K<xi oAtyot etcrtv 01 evpi- 
CTKO i/res avrr'/v. 

24. ttyomecr0e] Used by Paul. 
Here only in the synoptic Gospels. 

25. W.H. punctuated with a 
comma after Icr^vcrovfrLv, thus making 
this verse dependent upon the pre- 
ceding. It seems better, however, to , 
put a full stop between 24 and 25. 

The Ovpa is the connecting link 
between the two verses, but the 
sayings seem to be originally inde- 
pendent : in the former saying the 
emphasis falls upon the narrowness 
of the door : here the point is that 
after a certain time the door will be 
closed. But the grammar of v. 25 
is far from clear. The apodosis per- 
haps begins with KCU a7roK/n$ets c/>et, 
'then shall he answer and say to 
you ' ; or we might put a comma at 
ecrre and make the apodosis start at 
rore ape<r0t. The picture of the 
belated visitors shut out of the house 
reappears in the Matthaean parable 
of the ten virgins. Wellh. thinks 
that Mt. has elaborated a simpler 
form of parable such as that here 
attested by Lk. 

26-27. @f. Mt. vii. 22, 23, where, 
however, the excluded applicants 
claim that they have prophesied and 
worked miracles in the name of 
Christ. In both Mt. and Lk. the 
words of rejection are taken from 
Ps. vi. g. The former part of the 
sentence agrees more closely with 
the LXX in Luke, and the latter 
part of the sentence in Mt. 

28 f. The Lucan form of the plea 
for admission (esp. kv rats TrAare^at? 
I]P.MV eSi'Sa^as) makes it clear that 


'A./3paafj, Kal ^\craaK Kal la/ccofi teal irdvras TOVS 7rpo(f)r)Ta<; 
ev rfj {3acri\eiq rov 0eov, vjjba<$ Be eK^aXko^evov^ 

29 Kal YI^OVCTLV And <N<yroAu>N KAI AYCMWN Kal diro fioppa 

30 vorov Kal dvaKkiQriarovrat, ev rrj ftacri\eiq rov deov. 
ISov elcrlv ea^aroi OL ecrovrat, irpwroi, Kal elalv 

31 OL ecrovrai ea^aroL. 'Ez; avry ry &pq irpocrr\kQdv 
rwe? Qapucralot, \e<yovres avra) ' Ee\$e Kal iropevov 

32 evrevOev, on 'HpwS??? 6e\ei ere airoKrelvaL. Kal elvrev 

nopevOevTes eiirare rfj d\a)7reKi> ravrrj 'I Sou 
Bai/jLovta Kal Idcreis dirorekw arfaepov Kal avpuov, 

the rejected guests are Jews. In lament over Jerusalem with which 

vv. 28-30 we have the complement- it concludes (v. 34 f.) expresses the 

ary picture of the reception of the sorrow of Jesus over the apostasy of 

Gentiles, whom the excluded Jews, the nation. The incident is peculiar 

in pain and humiliation, will see to Luke. It appears to be out of 

taking their places with patriarchs place when Jesus is already on the 

and prophets at the Messianic feast way to Jerusalem and has left 

in the kingdom of God. The saying Herod's territory in Galilee unless 

vv. 28, 29 is incorporated by Mt. we suppose, what is in no way indi- 

in his version of the healing of the cated, that Jesus was in the Peraean 

Centurion's servant (viii. 11-12). The territory of Antipas. Probably the 

Matthaean version uses the phrases o incident should be located in Galilee 

KAaufyibs Kal 6 /3pvyfAo<s TWV oSovriav and at an earlier date in the ministry. 

more naturally of ' the outer dark- For Herod's interest in the proceed- 

ness' into which 'the sons of the ings of Jesus cf. Mk. vi. 14 (=ix. 

kingdom ' are banished. The phrase , 7 f . supra). It has been plausibly 

which occurs here only in Lk. conjectured that Mark's source at 

is somewhat awkward at the begin- this point recorded some hostile 

ning of the sentence, and the ewet activity on Herod's part, which 

shews that the wording has been has disappeared from the present 

disarranged. The evangelist appears Gospel. 

to have transposed the sentence in 32. rfj aAw7re/a ravr^] Elsewhere 

order to heighten the picture of in the Bible the fox is a destructive 

Jewish dismay at the sight of the rather than a cunning animal. This 

admission of the Gentiles : orav may be the force of the word here. 

o^rjcrOe KT/\. So Wellh. But the Greeks, like our- 

30. i.e. the Gentiles, who were selves, regarded the fox as a type of 
last, shall take precedence of the once cunning (see P.B. s.v.), and this idea 
favoured Jews. The same saying is also attested for Rabbinic literature. 
is differently applied in Mk. x. 31 Cf. Midrash on Cant. ii. 15, quoted 
( =Mt. xix. 30) and Mt. xx. 16. in S.B. ii. p. 200. But ace. to S.B. 

31. iv avrfj rfj wpa] An indication the fox in Rabbinic is more frequently 
that the narrative which follows is used to signify a worthless insigni- 
intended by Luke to be taken in ficant man. This last would give an 
connexion with what precedes. The appropriate meaning for this passage. 


KOI rfj rpirrj reXeioO/i-at. ir\r]v Bel JJLG (rrjfJLepov Kal avp.iov 33 
e%ofjbevr] iropevecrOai, on OVK evBe^erai Trpo^r^v 
e%a) 'lepoi/craA,?^. 'lepoutraX^yu, ^lepovtrakrifji, 34 

rovs TrpoffrrjTa? Kal \i0o/36\ov(ra 
7T/?o9 avrrjv, Trocra/a? rjdeXirjaa 
ra reKva crov bv rpOTrov opvis Tr)v eavrr)<$ VQGGICLV VTTO ra? 

, Kal OVK '^de\^a'ar6. ISov <b'\er&\ YAMN d O?KOC 35 

77 airoKreivova-a 

32-33. ISov cKySaAAw . . . iropev- 
ecr&ai] This is very obscure. The 
answer to Herod is certainly in 
general that Jesus intends to con- 
tinue his work in spite of the threat. 
But if he works cures ' to-day and 
to-morrow,' how is it that he also 
'goes on his way' this is what 
the Pharisees had advised 'to-day 
and to-morrow ' ? Wellh. suspects 
a primitive corruption. He proposes 
to delete as glosses /u ry rptry 
TeAetov/zat and the second cn')/j.pov 
Kal avpiov /cat (v. 33). He suggests 
that the first addition was KOI ry 
rpirr) reAeioiymc 'on the third day 
I am made perfect' (i.e. by the 
crucifixion and resurrection, of. Heb. 
ii. 10, v. g). This -gloss left ry 
e^o/vievr; iropeveo-Oai in an impossible 
position, and the second (rr/ftepov Kal 
ai'pLov Kai was inserted to provide 
the required preliminary for rfj 
l^o/jLevy. With these omissions a clear 
sense is given : " I shall continue my 
work for the present; nevertheless 
I shall shortly go on my way not 
because Herod threatens, but because 
a prophet must not perish outside 

34-35. The apostrophe to Jeru- 
salem occurs in Mt. xxiii. 37 f. as 
a sequel to the words which Luke 
has given above (xi. 49-51). The 
connexion in Mt. is good, and 
the situation in Jerusalem leaves 
open a good interpretation of the 
difficult last verse (with the wordi^ 
added after t'Sr/re) : Jesus, 

speaking on the eve of his Passion, 
affirms that he will next be seen as 
the returning Messiah. It is note- 
worthy that the last verse appears 
to assume, as J. Weiss notes, that 
the Jews will acknowledge the true 
Messiah when he returns, cf. Ac. 
iii. 19 f., E.O. xi. 26. But if the 
lament is spoken; as Luke represents 
it, while Jesus is on the way to 
Jerusalem, how can Jesus say, "ye 
shall not see me until ye shall say 
Blessed is he . . ." unless, indeed, 
Luke thought that the salutation 
referred to the triumphal entry, xix. 
38 ? But that gives a very bald 
sense, and leaves the last words and 
the preceding lament without any 
intelligible connexion. 

34. rjdeXrj(ra] The subject in Lk. 
is, of course, Jesus, but if the con- 
nexion in Mt. xxiii. reproduces Q, 
and if Lk. reproduces Q in ascrib- 
ing xi. 49-51 to '-the Wisdom of 
God,' then the original subject of 
t]deXj]a-a will have been not Jesus, 
but God, or the Wisdom of God. 
Harnack holds that Jesus quotes a 
lament which in the original was 
uttered by God. 

35. d(j)iTat . . . tyitoj/] Cf. Jer. 
xxii. 5, xii. 7. Lk. does not give 
eprj/jios, which, however, is not cer- 
tainly original in Mt. It may have 
been inserted under the influence of 
Jer. xxii. 5. The meaning is in any 
case not different. W.H. following 
KB have omitted ->y^et ore after ews, 
but the combination D latt and syrr 


r - -v ' r X ~l f " ' v "? /(/ 

YMoiN. \ey(i) [oej vfjuv, ov ^i) torjTe JJLG eeo? 

EyAorHMeNoc 6 epxo'MeNoc GN O'NO'MATI 
35 ews] add y&i ore AD al plur latt syrr : om KBL i etc. e aegg. cf. Mt xxiii. 29 

is strong in its favour, and it seems Wellh. suggests that ore may repre- 
an unlikely insertion, ore eiV^re KT\. sent the Aram, relative : ' he to 
must be taken as subject to rf^et. whom.' 


Jesus dines with a Pharisee on a Sabbath day. He heals a dropsical man 
who is then present, and justifies his healing on the Sabbath to the lawyers 
(vv. 1-6). Headdresses the guests, bidding them, when invited to a feast, to 
take the lowest place (7-11). Next the host is addressed and bidden to invite 
the poor and the afflicted rather than the wealthy who can return the 
hospitality (12-14). Then, in reply to an exclamation from one of the guests, 
" Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God," Jesus propounds 
a parable which shews that this blessedness is little valued by those who 
were first bidden and that their places will be taken by others. 

It is very plain that the scene is a literary device to provide a 
setting for the sayings, all of which have in common the theme of a 
feast. The motive for including the healing of the dropsical man in the 
same setting is less obvious. The address to the guests is couched in general 
terms (orav /cA^^s VTTO TWOS), and this does not harmonise with the idea 
that the speech is addressed to guests who are then and there choosing 
their places. The address to the host is equally inappropriate, if spoken to 
an actual host whose hospitality has been accepted. 

The healing of the dropsical man appears to be another variant of the 
theme of healing on the Sabbath. Cf. xiii. 10 f. and vi. 6 f . ( = Mk. iii. i). The 
miracle is peculiar to Luke, but the saying in v. 5 was known to Matthew 
and interpolated by him into his version of the Marcan miracle (xii. n). 
The next two sections (7-11, 12-14) are peculiar to Luke. The concluding 
parable has a parallel in Mt. xxii. I f. The differences between the two 
versions of the parable, which are considerable, seem to favour the hypothesis 
that Matthew gives the parable in a more developed and more allegorical 
form than that which appears here. 

XIV. i Kat eyevero ev TU> e\6eli> avrov els OLKOV TLVO<$ TWV 

I. Kal eyevero KxA.] Cf. i. 8 n. Pharisees.' TWI/ Qapicraiuv is best 
TOJI/ apxoirwv r ^ )V t l- > a/oi0~aia>v] taken as equivalent to e/c rcoi/ <&. 
'one of the rulers, who was of the rather than as governed by d 


dprov KCLI 

avrol rjaav iraparrjpov^evot, avrov. KOI ISov dv6pa)7ro<$ Tt9 2 
vSpcmriKos e/jb7rpoa-0V avrov. KCLI aTroKpiOels o 'I^croi)? 3 

Trpos rov? vofjbiKovs KOI Qapicraiovs \ej(ov *Et%e<rriv 
Tc5 cra/3/3aTC() Qeoarczvcrai TJ ov ; ol 8e ^crv^acrav. KCLI 4 
Idcraro avrov /cal d7re\v<7i>. KOL irpos avrov? 5 
V/JLWV w'o9 17 /3ou9 et9 <j)peap Treaelrai, Kai 
OVK ev6ew<$ dvaa-irdcrei avrov ev ^^pa rov craftftdrov; /cal 6 
avrairoKQiQr\vai TT/OO? ravra. "EXe^yez/ 7 




TWV] om raw BK* 5 wos T? /3ous AB al pier e f q syr(vg.hl) 

sah Cyr : utos i? /3ous 17 oi'os syr.cur : /Sous 77 oi'os syr.sin aeth : oz>os T; jSous 
etc, 124 etc, 33 al pauc a b vg boh arm pal 5" : irpo^arov 17 /3ous D 

Cf. Jo. iii. i. The omission of TUJI/ 
in B is doubtless a slip due to 
homoioteleuton with upxovriav. 

f/>ayeiV aprov} The Sabbath day was 
no hindrance to Jewish hospitality, 
The dishes were prepared on Friday 
and kept warm until they were 
wanted. Cf. Mishn. Sabbath, ed. Beer, 
iv. i, and Aug. Enarr. in Ps. xci. 2. 

2. ai^coTTos rts T/I/ v5pa;7ri/<os] 
The presence of the man is not ex- 
plained. The Pharisees were on the 
look-out for an opening to attack 
Jesus, but it is not necessary to 
suppose that the man was present 
by the deliberate intention of the 
host. Apparently he was not one 
of the guests (tt7reA.i>crei' v. 4). The 
incident appears to be thought of as 
taking place before the company 
have taken their places at the feast 
(v. 7). 

3. tt7ro/c/H(9eiY| Jesus replies to the 
unspoken suspicions of the watching 
Pharisees as in vi. 8 supra. Or 
aTroKfu^ei's may not be more signi- 
ficant than in xiii. 4. 

e'e<TTiv T<O o-a(3/3dTw /CT/\.] The 
question of Jesus is substantially the 
same as above, vi. 9 (reproducing 
the Marcan counterpart). ' 

5. For the argument a fortiori from 
a beast to a man of. Mt. xii. u, and 
supra xiii. 15. 

wos } /?o{s] This difficult reading 
is doubtless prior to the variants, 
but it can scarcely be right. Wellh. 
is disposed to favour Mill's conjecture 
that wos is a corruption for the old 
Greek word oi's (a sheep). Plummer 
interprets the text as it stands with 
an emphasis upon vfj.wv : " which of 
you yourselves would not rescue your 
son or even your ox on the sabbath ?" 
Bab. Talm. Baba Qamma v. 6 (Gold- 
schmidt, vi. p. 192) is no true parallel 
to the B text here, as Klostermann's 
abbreviated quotation might lead the 
reader to suppose. The ox and the 
ass, the son and the daughter are 
not bracketed together in one phrase. 
The point there is that if an ox or an 
ass fall into a well, the owner of the 
well is responsible for the damage; 
but if a son or a daughter fall, he 
is not responsible. 

7. eVe^wv] sc. TOV vovi'. Here only 
in Gospels. Cf. Ac. iii. 5, i Ti. iv. 
16. Luke describes the discourse 
which follows as a irapafioXtf, and 
this probably gives the correct clue 
to its interpretation : i.e. it is not 


8 7rpo)TOK\icrLa<; e^e\eyoi>TO, \ey(0v 777509 avTovs ' Orav K 

VTTO TWOS els <ydfj,ovs, ftr) KaTaK\i0fjs el? rrjv Tcaw 

C) fir} 7TOT6 evTifJbOTepbs aov T) KeK\r)fJiei>o<$ vir avrov, KOL 

eXdwv 6 <re teal avrov Ka\eo~a<$ epel O-QL Ao9 TOVTW TOTTOV, 

fcal rore dp^y /j,erd ala-^yvi^s rov ea-j^arov rorrov Kare^eLV. 

IO d\\' orav K\r)0f}<; iropev0els dvdirecre els rov ecryarov TOTTOV, 
'iva orav e\0y 6 /cefcXtj/cMS ore epel crou 3>i\e, irooaavd^Qi 
dvd>Tepov Tore ecrai croi Soj~a CVMTTLOV rravrwv TWV crvv- 

I I avaKeufj^evwv crot. on Tra? o vtywv eavrov rarceivwQ^arerai 

I 2 teal 6 raTreivwv eavTov vtywOrjaerai. "RXeyev $e /cal 

T< KeK\7]KOTi avTOV " Qrav iroLrj^ dptarov fj SeiTrvov, fj.rj 
<j)(ovei, TOU9 (j)L\ov<> aov fjLrjSe rou9 dSe\(j)ovs aov /JbijSe TOVS 
(rvyyeveis aov jaySe <yeiTova<$ irXovcriovs, ptj ITOTC ical dvrol 

1 3. dvritcaX.ecraya'LV ere ical yevrjTai dvTairo^o^d O~OL. 
orav $>oyj}v iroifjs, Kakeu TCTW^OV^, dvaireipov^, 

13 avaireipovs i<ABD al : avairripovs codd pier. cf. Phryn Beldcer p. 9. 22 dva- 
a, dta TOU 77 ryu irpiarrjv ou 5ta TTJS et duftdoyyov ws ol dfj.ade'is 

a direct injunction as to proper Troirjs apicrrov . . . pr) ^>wi/et, and 

behaviour at a dinner (though this the latter address must certainly be 

certainly seems to be suggested by the interpreted as a direct injunction, 

words eTre^toj/ . . . eeA.eyoi/To), but not as a parable. But if Jiilicher is 

the proper behaviour at a feast affords right, this is, as Wellh. notes, the only 

an analogy to the attitude demanded example of this kind of ' worldly 

by the Kingdom of God. In the wisdom ' to be found in the Gospels. 

Kingdom the present order of things Cf. the advice in Prov. xxv. 6 

shall be reversed (v. n), as the self- d\,aovevov evtoTrtov /^ac 

chosen order of his guests is reversed kv TOTTOIS Suvacrrwj/ v^icrracro 

by the host in the parable. But crov yap croi TO pYjO-rjvai 'Avdfiaive 

Wellh., following Jiilicher, thinks that irpos /AC, ^ raTretvcoo-at ere kv TrpocrwTT^ 

the injunction is intended directly: Swaorou A similar saying is given 

i.e. Jesus here gives a rule of conduct by ' Western ' texts at Mt. xx. 28. 
for ordinary life, without any special u. This saying recurs at xviii. 14, 

reference to a religious motive. Luke and it is also found in Mt. xxiii. 12. 
has wrongly described this as 'a 12-14. This is not described as a 

parable,' and wrongly spiritualised 7rapaf3oX-r}. Hospitality should be 

it by appending the saying of v. 1 1 . exercised towards those who cannot 

It is in favour of Jiilicher' s view that repay on earth. Generosity of this 

the form of the address to the guests kind will be rewarded in the next 

(vv. 8-1 1 ) approximates closely to world. This is the same principle 

the form of. the address to the host as that laid down at vi. 33 f. On 

(vv. 12-14). Cf. v. 8 orai/ K\t]9y<s the idea of reward in the teaching 
Kara/cAt^/Js with v. 12 orav - of Jesus cf. vi. 23 n. 


rv(j)\ov<$' ical fjiaKapios eery, on OVK e^ovcnv dvra'rroBovvai, 14 
(TOi) dvraTToBodrja-eraL yap aou ev rfj dvaarrdcrei ru>v 
BiKaicov. 'A/covcras Be rt? rwv (rvvavaKei^ivcav 1 5 

ravra elirev avrw Ma/capias ocrris <j>dyerai, aprov ev rf) 
(3a<ri\eiq rov Qeov. o Be elirev avr< "AvOpwiros r*9 1 6 
ejroiei Beiirvov aeya, KOI efcd\ecrev 7ro\\ov$, ical direarefi^ev 1 7 
rov Bov\ov avrov rfj &pa rov ^eiirvov elrrelv rofc jcefcX'r}- 
p,evoL<$ "Eipftecrde on r)Brj evoi^d ecrrtv. Kal rjp^avro 1 8 
diro fjbia? irdvres irapairela-Qai. 6 irpwro^ elirev avro) 
'Aypbv r)<yopa(ra KOI e^a) dvd<yKvjv e%e\Qu>v IBeiv avrov 
epoorw ere, e%e fie Trapyrirj^evov. ical erepo? elirev Zievyr) I g 

15 aprov &<ABD I etc al mult latt syr(vg.hl) aegg 5~ : apiarov 69 etc 700 al mult 
syr.vt arm 

14. v rfj dvaorTcifreb ruJv SiKaitov] SovAos. It was a recognised custom 
It is precarious to argue from this to send a servant to repeat the in- 
that Luke or his source precludes vitation at the appointed time. Cf. 
here the thought of the resurrection Esther vi. 14; Terence, H au ton. 169; 
of the unjust (cf. Ac. xxiv. 15 Apul. Met. iii. 12. " Et ecce quidam 
tti/ttcrrao-tj/ //.eAAetv e'<recr$ai SiKatajv introcurrens famulus: 'rogat te,' 
re Kal uStKGDi'), or that a distinction ait, ' tu.a parens Byrrhena, et con- 
is intended (as in Rev. xx.) between vivii, cui te sero desponderas, iam 
a first and a second resurrection. It adpropinquantis admonet.' " To re- 
is merely affirmed that the just will fuse, when finally summoned, an 
rise to be recompensed. invitation which had already been 

15. For this pious exclamation cf. accepted would be an act of gross 
xi. 27. This verse effects the transi- discourtesy.. 

tion from the thought of the earthly 1 8 f . The excuses are very graphic- 

banquet to the heavenly banquet, ally described/ Mt. says simply .that 

which has been prepared for by the they went away, one to his farm 

reference to the resurrection in v. 14. and another to his merchandise. The 

16. ai'$ /JCOTTOS rts] In Mt. xxii. it man who had married a wife appears 
is a king who sends out servants only in Lk. 

(plural) to bid the guests to the 18. O.TTO ^ms] aira^ Aeyo^iei/ov. 

marriage feast of his son. This ap- Prob. yvto/z^? or some other such 

pears to be an allegorizing expansion word should be supplied. Cf. Arist. 

of a simple form of the story such Lys. 1000. But ace. to Wellh. it is 

as that here given by Luke. In an Aramaism for min cJi'da ' all at 

Mt. the servants may be inter- once.' Cf. P.B. s.v. 

preted as the apostles whom God e'^e /xe Trap^r^/xevov] Perhaps a 

sends out to bid the guests to the Latinism. Cf. Martial ii. 79 " excu- 

marriage - feast of the Christ (so satum habeas me rogo." But attested 

Wellh.). Luke does not allegorize, for the Greek vernacular. Ox. Pap. 

and it is probably a mistake to 292. 6 Sib Tra/xiwaAw ere ... 

ask here who is represented by the avrov crwe<TTa/xei'ov. 


/3owv rjyopacra irevre Kal iropevofJLai SoKifjidcrat, avrd" 
2O ere, % /-te Trapyrfjfjievov. Kal erepo? elrrev TvvaiKa 
2 1 Kal Sia TOVTO ov Bvva/jbai e\6eiv. KOI Trapayevo/jievos 6 

So{)Xo9 a7njyy6i,\6V TO> Kvplw avrov ravra. Tore 6pyicr6el$ 

6 ot/eoSecr7r6Y?79 elirev TO> SovXw avrov "E^eX^e ra^ew? et? 

T9 TrXareias Kal pvfias rfjs 7roXe&>9, /cal rou? TTTCO^OVS real 

22 avaTrelpovs /cal TU<jbXou? /cat ^wXou? elcrdyaye wSe. Kal 
elirev o SouXo9 Kupte, ryeyovev o eVera^a?, /cat- ert TOTTO? 

23 eaTiv. Kal euTrev o Kvpios Trpos TOV Sov\ov "E^eX^e et? 
68ou? al (frpajfjiovs Kal avdyKacrov elaekOelv, 'iva 

24 fjbov 6 oiKos' \eyco yap vfuv on ot>8et9 T&V dvSpcov e 

yevcrerai fjiov rov 

20. The more emphatic refusal of invitation to the Jews. Luke does 
the man who had married a wife not give the somewhat incongruous 
answers to the circumstance of his addition of Mt. that "the king 
condition. Ace. to Deut. xxiv. 5 sent his armies and destroyed those 
(cf. ib. xx. 7) a newly married man murderers, and burnt up their city " 
is released from all military duty (xxii. 7), nor does he include the 
and other business for the space of a Matthaean pendant of the guest 
year. Cf. also Hdt. i. 36. who entered without a wedding 

21. The well-to-do guests having garment. 

excused themselves, their place is 23. avdyKaa-ov etcreA^etv] 'urge,' 

to be taken by the outcast and the ' press.' This is the verse to which 

afflicted. The Pharisees and the Augustine appealed to justify corn- 

religious leaders having rejected their pulsion in religion, c. Gaud. Don. i. 

opportunity, they are replaced by 25, 28; But the idea of literal com- 

' the publicans and sinners.' The pulsion is not at all suggested. 
new guests are described in the same 24. Aeyw yap v[j,u>] A very curious 

terms as those whom the host has yet natural transition. The plural 

been bidden to invite to his table, vfj.iv shews that the speaker is no 

v. 13. longer the host in conversation with 

22. Kal cVt TOTTOS ecTTtV] Not so his servant. Moreover, from the point 
in Mt., where the hall is filled by of view of the parable, it would hardly 
the guests, 'both bad and good,' be appropriate that the host should 
who are collected by the second thus pronounce sentence upon guests 
invitation. In Lk. the host dis- who have debarred themselves. The 
patches his servant a third time; speaker is now Jesus (cf. xi. 8, xv. 
this time he is to go into the high- 7, 10, xvi. 9, xviii. 14, Mt. xxi. 43), 
ways and hedges outside the city to and he is foretelling, in direct speech, 
fill the places which are still vacant, the displacement of those originally 
This symbolizes the expansion of the invited to the Messianic banquet 
Church outside the limits of the by the new converts to the faith. 
nation. The catholic invitation to The picture is the same as xiii. 
the world supersedes the limited 28, 29. 



These verses state a truth complementary to the preceding. We have 
been shewn that the invitation to the Kingdom is scattered far and wide. The 
condition of having received one of the original invitations is abrogated. But 
there is another and sterner condition of discipleship the condition of 
renunciation. The transition in thought is somewhat similar to that in the 
last chapter, v. 21 f., where, after the parables of the mustard seed and the 
leaven which portray the expansion of the preaching of the Kingdom, we 
pass on to the words " Strive to enter in through the narrow door." 

The two sayings in vv. 26, 27 are paralleled in Mt. x. 37, 38 (the charge 
to the Twelve). The theme is the call for renunciation, and this theme is 
resumed at v. 33. The intervening parables are peculiar to Luke. They 
have affinity in idea with the sayings which precede in that, like them, 
they teach that a great achievement needs a corresponding preparation. 
But the peculiar point of the parables represents an advance upon vv. 26, 27, 
and this point is not fairly brought out by the concluding verse 33 (oimos o?i' 
KrA.). As Jiilicher rightly observes (Gleichnisreden, ii. pp. 208 f .), if the parables 
are to be brought into line with the moral which is deduced from them, they 
should rather run : A man who has begun to build a tower must, if he would 
escape ridicule, throw all his reserves into its completion. A king who is 
about to encounter another and more powerful king must strain every nerve 
to make his own army fit for the battle. So also he who would be my disciple 
must bid good-bye to all his possessions. The actual point of the parables 
is different, viz. the need for calculation before undertaking a great task. 
Their immediate object is to discourage a hasty enthusiasm rather than 
directly to call out self-sacrifice. Perhaps, as Jiilicher suggests, the parables 
followed the preceding sayings in Luke's source, and the evangelist himself 
inserted the connecting yap in v. 28 and appended v. 33 not quite happily 
to resume the whole. Verses 34, 35 continue the theme of discipleship. 
The true disciple is as salt ; the half-hearted disciple, like tasteless salt, is 
worse than useless. 

ZtWeTTopevovro Be avru) o^Xot TroXXot, KOL crrpacfrels 2 5 

25. o'xAc6 7roAAo6] The gathering addressed to the multitude, but in 

of the multitudes answers to the uni- Mt. x. the setting of the sayings is 

versalistic note of the last parable, different. " In Luke the sayings re- 

and forms the background of the ceive a distinctive and certainly not 

stern sayings which follow. The an unhistorical illumination from the 

similar sayings in Mk. viii. 34 are 1 introduction of v, 25. The masses 



26 elirev irpos avrovs Et rt? ep^erau irpos pe KCLI ov fAiarel 
TOV irarepa eavrov Kal rrjv fjuqrepa KOI rfyv yvval/ca Kal ra 
TeKva KOI TOW? ,SeX<jbot>9 KOI ra<; aSeX^a?, ert re /cal rr/v 

27 ^v^rfV eavTQV, ov SvvaTai elvai uov jAaO-rjTrjs. o<rrt? ov 
fta&Ta^ei TOV aravpov eavrov KCLI ep^erai, o'jrio'w pov, ov 

28 Svvarai, elvai JJLOV yu-a^rr;?. rt? jap et; V/JLWV 6e\cav 
TTvpyov OLKooojJirjo-ai, ov%l irpwrov KaOicras i/r^^t^et rrjv 

29 SaTrdvrjv, el e^et et? a r rra^Ticr^QV' ) 'iva ^ TTOTE Gevros avrov 
OepeKiov KOI fjir) la-^yovro^ e/creXecra-t TrdvTes ol OewpovvTes 

30 apl;u>VTai avTW e^jrai^eLv Xe^oyre? OTI Ovro? o avOpw- 
3 1 7T09 rfp^aro OLKoSofjueiv Kal OVK lo-^va-ei> e/creXeVai. 77 

iropevopevos ere/ow /3ao-i\e2 o-vv/3a\elv eh 

who attach themselves to Jesus, as culty to have provided Jesus with a 

represented in Luke or his source metaphor. But apart from its associa- 

(xix. u, 37), regard the journey of tionwith his own cross the metaphor 

Jesus to Jerusalem as a triumphal would not have been appropriate. 

progress, at the end of which there It is the combination of the gallows 

glimmers the kingdom of God. They and the Messiahship which is sig- 

all regard themselves as disciples of nificant, and this combination was 

Jesus who are to be led by him to effected by Jesus himself. The saying 

glory. This conception of disciple- must have taken shape in the corn- 

ship is to be damped down by the munity. The disciples must, through 

words which follow : for the way of great tribulation, enter the kingdom 

Jesus is the way of renunciation and of God (Acts xiv. 22), following Jesus 

of the cross" (J.Weiss). without the camp, bearing his re- 

26. OTJ /uo-ei] a hyperbole. The proach (Heb. xiii. 13). 

meaning is that given in the -tamer 28. Trrpyoi/] Perhaps a tower for his 

version of Mt., "he who loveth vineyard, cf. Mk. xii. i. So Jiilicher, 

father or mother more than me." Loisy. But the 'foundation' and 

The kinsfolk mentioned in Mt. are the expense suggest something more 

father, mother, son and daughter, elaborate. Lagrange quotes Horace, 

The addition of 'wife' in Luke is "pauperum tabernas, regumque 

noteworthy. So again xviii. 21, and turres." Cf. Jos. B.J. v. 4. 2. 

cf. xiv. 20 supra, ert re KUI TI)V /cameras] He sits to make a deliberate 

\l/v)(r)v eavrov is probably taken by calculation. ^^c/>t^et] Elsewhere in 

Luke from another saying which N.T. only Rev. xiii. 18. BaTrdvr) and 

followed in his source as it does still aTrapricr/xos here only in N.T. 

in Mt. x. 39 : 6 evpaji/ ryv ^vx>1 v a7Ttt/oTr/xos a very rare word, 

avTov aTTo/Vecrec avTTfjV KT/\. quoted from Dion. Hal. De comp. 

ov Svvarat . . . /xa^ryrTys] Again verb. c. 24. It is also found in a 

stronger than Mt. OVK ZO-TIV pov ato. papyrus of the early second century, 

27. The sight of criminals carrying in a similar sense to that of this 
their crosses will have been familiar, passage, of the completion of building 
and might be supposed without diffi- operations, Giessen-pap. 67. 9. 


cras r rrpa)Tov ^ov\evcrerai el Svvaros e&riv ev Seita 
v r rravrrjo-aL TU> pera eiKocn ^ikid^wv ep^ofjbevM 
eV avrov ; el Se ftrfye, eri avrov Troppa) ovros Trpea-fteiav 32 
epcora Trpos elprfvrjv. ovrax? ovv vra? e vfJL&v 33 

09 OVK aTTordcrarerat, Trdcnv rot? eavrov virdp^ovcrLV ov 

Svvarai elvai pov /JLaO^rr)^. Ka\ov ovv TO okas' eav 

KOL TO aXa? fji(t)pav0fj, ev TIVI dprvOrfaeraL ; ovre et? <yr\v 3 5 

32 7r/3os eipyvyv fc$F : ra TT/JOS eipyvyv ADL codd pier 5" : eiy eiprivyv B 482 : ra 
ets eif>i}V(\v Kll al plus IO 

32. Trpeo-fietav] Abstract for con- what precedes. Salt answers to the 

crete : ' ambassadors.' Cf . Oepaireiu. distinctive quality of a true disciple, 

xii. 42. This interpretation is made explicit 

epMTp Trpos etpyi/r/i/] Hort for once in Mt. v. 13 {y/ets eare TO aAas T?)S 

deserts B. But the reading of B yyj<s KT\.. The Matthaean form of 

eptoTct eis elp^i'i^v is more difficult the saying is prob. a paraphrase 

Greek and probably more original made to adapt it to its setting, cf. 

than the variants. Cf. Thackeray in v. 14 v^ets ecrre TO (/xus TOU KOO-//.OU. 

J.Th.S. xiv. pp. 389 f. epwrav ets Lk. may be supposed to preserve 

eipvyi/Tyi/ or TO, ets etpryyryi/ is trans- the Q form. The words cav Se . . . 

lation Greek in the later books of fitapavBy (om. /cat Mt.) are common 

the LXX for Di?^7 "?N^ ' to ask after to Mt. and Lk. For oi!re cis yfy . . . 

a person's health,' c to greet,' ' to /3uAAo wti/ avTo Mt. gives eis ovSev 

salute.' Judg. xviii. I5b; I Regn. tcr^vet eVt ct ^ /3X.r)6tv e'to Kara- 

x. 4, xvii. 22a, xxv. 5, xxx. 2lb. irareicrOai VTTO TOJV ai/^pcovraii/. The 

"The insertion of rd was a slight former half of the saying is also given 

accommodation of the Hebraism to in Mk. ix. 50, where it begins as here 

Greek syntax." When used in con- i<a\.ov TO aAas. In Mk. the inter- 

nexion with royalty the corresponding pretation of the verse in relation to 

phrase in other Semitic languages and its context is very obscure, and 

in ancient Egyptian bears the special perhaps for this reason was omitted 

meaning ' to do homage,' * to tender by Mt. and Lk. at the corresponding 

one's allegiance,' and this special place in their Gospels. In Mt. the 

meaning is found in Heb. (LXX use of salt for manuring purposes 

IpcoTttv TO, ei's elp'r'jvrjv), 2 Regn. viii. appears to be the thought throughout, 

lo. That this passage (the submis- Here it is perhaps probable that the 

sion of King Toi to King David) was use of salt as a preservative for food 

actually here in mind, as Thackeray is thought of in the first clause : "Salt 

suggests, is perhaps not probable, is good (as a preservative or condi- 

but it may be taken to establish the ment), but tasteless salt is useless 

meaning of the phrase as used here, even for manure." oiVe et? yrjv ovre 

i.e. ' to submit.' ets Kovrptav] i.e. it is useless to put 

34~35- Salt is good provided it re- it on the land forthwith or to keep 

tains its peculiar properties, but if it it on the manure-heap for future use. 

lose them it is worse than useless. Perles(Z.N.T. W., 1920, p. 96)ingeni- 

The saying is to be connected with ' ously suggests that et's yij v is due to 



<=v6erov ecrrtv ea) 3d\\ov(riv avro. C O 

wra (iKoveiv a/cover co. 

a misreading of the Aramaic ?3PI ' to by Lagrange) appears unnecessary. 

season ' for the Biblical (and Aramaic) The use of salt for manure is a well- 

73) 'earth.' The meaning then attested practice for Egypt and 

would be : 'it is useless either as a Palestine, both in ancient and in 

condiment or as manure.' But the modern times. Cf. Gressmann in 

conjecture (regarded as improbable Th. Lit. Z., 1911, pp. 156 f. 


Three parables to illustrate from human behaviour God's attitude towards 
the penitent. The second and third parables (' the lost coin ' and ' the 
two sons ') are found in this Gospel alone. The parable of the lost sheep 
occurs also in Matthew (xviii. 12-13), where, however, its setting is clearly 
secondary and editorial. See v. 7 n. 

In Luke the first two parables are closely similar in form and doubtless 
formed a pair in the source, like the two parables in the preceding chapter 
(xiv. 25 f.) and ' the mustard seed ' and ' the leaven ' (xiii. 18 f.). The loss of 
a possession enhances our sense of its value, and a successful search gives us 
keener happiness than the possession of other similar goods which we have 
never lost. So is it in heaven, when God wins back a repentant sinner. The 
parable of the two sons which follows is slightly distinguished from the 
preceding parables by a separate word of introduction (elirev Se, v. u). 
It continues, the leading thought of the other two, but the repentant sinner 
who before appeared only in the interpretation of the parable (vv. 7, 10) 
now takes concrete form -in the parable itself. In place of a lost sheep or a 
lost coin we have now a lost son. This gives an intimacy and a directness 
to this parable which is lacking to the others. In no other passage, we feel, 
does Luke enter more deeply into a picture which he has reproduced and 
possibly himself filled out. The glad tidings of God's love for the penitent 
sinner proclaimed by Jesus is the evangelist's favourite theme, and into this 
parable that theme is concentrated. 

Wellhausen holds that the story of the elder brother is an appendix which 
does not belong to the original story. " The comparison of the two brothers 
which is presented in xv. 25 f. expresses a motif on which no stress is laid 
in xv. 11-24. There there is no comparison, and we ask as little about the 
attitude of the elder brother as we do about the attitude of the ninety-nine 
sheep and the nine drachmae." The theory is supported by certain in- 


consistencies in the story as it stands (cf. v. 12 n.). But these inconsistencies 
are not sufficient to weaken our impression that the father and each of his 
sons are all three essential to the story as a whole. The opening words 
prepare us for both parts of the parable. No doubt there is a difference from 
the parables which precede, but Wellhausen fails to note that in the other 
parables we hear as little of the attitude of the counterparts to the younger 
brother (the lost sheep and the lost coin) as we do of the counterparts to 
the elder brother. There is a similar development from the preceding parables 
in both parts of the parable of the two sons. 

It is noteworthy that the repentant prodigal is at once received back 
to his father's love. Repentance on the son's part calls forth of itself the 
father's forgivenness. Nothing suggests that a mediator is needed between 
the erring son and his father. It is urged by some critics that here we have 
the original Gospel teaching on repentance and forgiveness a teaching 
which has been later overlaid by the Church's doctrine of remission of sins 
in virtue of Christ's death upon the cross. Others have replied that we must 
not look for all the factors in a deep problem in one picture ; the parable 
of the prodigal son on the lips of another than Jesus, and unbalanced 
by his teachings on judgement and renunciation, might be misleading. 
Without entering into these discussions here, it may be noted that 
Luke appears nowhere to associate the remission of sins directly with 
Christ's death. 

Luke's interpretation of the immediate intention of the parable is given 
by his opening verse : the younger son represents the publicans and sinners, 
and the elder brother the self-righteous Pharisees. And this no doubt is 
true to the mind and attitude of Jesus. It was a natural extension of the 
original idea that the younger son should be taken to mean the converted 
pagans and the elder brother the Jews. It was probably because he inherited 
and assumed this interpretation that Marcion excised the parable : he was 
unable to allow that vv. 29 and 31 could describe the attitude of the Father 
of Jesus Christ to the people of the Old Covenant. The parable was frequently 
used in justification of the disciplinary action of tho Church in readmitting 
the lapsed on their penitence. (So by Clement, Ambrose, and others; of. 
Zulm, p. 565 n. 72.) Tertullian as u Monfcanist (A 1 pudlc. 8, o) warmly 
contests tho justice of this view and interprets the younger son as 
typifying mankind, first sunk in heathen darkness and then redeemed 
through Christ. 


XV. I Ho~av Be avTw eyyufovTes irdwres oi Te\wvai Kal oi 

2 djjLapr(i)\ol UKOVCLV avTov. Kal Bieyoyyvfrv oi re dpapicraloi 
teal oi rypafjLfjLaTels XeyovTes on Ovro? d{j,apTa)\ovs Trpocr- 

3 Be^eTaL KOI o~vveo~0iei aurot?. elvrev Be Trpos avTOvs rrjv 

4 TrapaftoiXrjv ravrrjv \e<ycov Tt? avOpwrros e 
etcarov Trpofiara KOL aTroXecra? et; avT&v ev ov 

TO, evevYjKovra evvea ev ry eptffji(p real iropeveraL eVl TO 

5 a7roXa)A-o? ei&>9 evpy avro ; KOI evpcbv eTrLTiQ^iv .eVt rot9 

6 a)^coi>5 avrou 'xaipwv, Kal e\6a)v els TOV OIKOV 


ori, evpov TO irpoftaTov fMov TO a7roX&)Xo9. T^eyco V/MV 

on OUTW9 'Xupa & TM ovpavu) ecnau eVl evl 

1} eirl evevrjKovTa ewea St/catot9 o'inves ov 
8 e'XpvcrLV /jLeravoias. ''H Tt9 jvvrj 8pa%{jba<; e^ova~a Se/ca, eav 

airrei \v^yov /cal aapol rrjv 

g olfciav Kal tyrel e r JTLpe\(i)^ ea>? ov evpy; Kal evpovaa avv- 

Ka\ei Ta9 <f)i\as Kal yeirovas \e r yov<ra ^vv^ap^T 
IO 6Vt evpov rrjv Bpa^/jirjv rjv avrcoXecra. ovT&)9, Xeya) 

yiverai X a P a V( *> rTrio v r ^ v dyyeXcvv TOV Oeov eVt evl d^ap- 

I I T&>Xo) /jbeTavoovvTi. EtTrez/ Be " A.v6 pwiros Tt9 el^ev 

1 2 Bvo viovs. Kal elnrev o vea>Tepo<s avTwv TW iraTpi TlaTep, 

B6<f fjioi TO 7Tt,(3d\\ov fMepo? T7/9 ovalaf 6 Be Bie2\ev 

1. Cf. v. 30 ( = Mk. ii. 16). eV rwi/ p.LKpC)v TOVTOW. This seems 

2. Siayoyyu^oj. The compound in further from the thought of the 
N.T. only here and xix. 7. parable than the conclusion given 

4. kv rrj e/^/xoj] In Mt. evri TO, here. 

oprj. 8. Spax/xas] The Greek silver 

5. l-rrcTtOr/a-Lv e?rt TOVS w//oi'?] Not drachma. Mentioned here only in 
in Mt. Cf. Is. xl. n, xlix. 22. N.T., but cf. SiBpa^/jiov Mt. xvii. 24. 

6. The invitation to friends and 10. eycuTrtov TWI/ uyyeAwv TOV ^eov] 
neighbours is not given by Mt. i.e. the court of heaven. But cf . 

7. The moral springs clearly from xii. 8 n. 

the parable. In Mt. the parable has 12. TO eVtyS^AAoi/] 'that falls to 

been introduced under the heading me.' A regular formula. See the 

opare p) Kara(^poi/'ijarrjT ei/o-j TOJI/ papyrus quoted Deissmann, L.E. p. 

piKpwv TOVTUV (xviii. 10), and the 166 n. 5. Besides testamentary 

moral drawn from it is : ourws OVK disposition of property, later Jewish 

ecrrti/ ^eA^/xa e/xTrporr^ei/ TOV vrar/jos law recognised disposition by gift in 

fj.ov TOV ev rots ovpa,voi<s tVtt ttTToA^rat a man's life-time. Unlike a will, 



1 6 



avrols rbv ftiov. Kal per ov iro\\as rjuepas a-vvayaywv 1 3 

/ f / f\ > Cv / 3 / / \ 

'rravra o veotrepos vtos aireorjfji'rja'ev eis ycopav jjbaKpav, Kau 

Btetr/copTricrev rr)v ovcruav avrov a)V acrcorw?. BaTra- 1 4 

Be avrov irdvra eyevero \ifjibs lo~^ypa Kara rrjv 
ytapav eKeivriv, Kal avrb<s ijpl;aro varepelcrOai, Kal iropev- 1 5 

avrov els rovs dypovs avrov /3oo~Keiv 
7re0Vfj,eL %opra<r0rjvai eK rwv Keparicov wv 77 

eSiBov avrw. els eavrbv Be e\6o>v efyrj Tlocroi, 17 

e f syr.cur sah pal: ye/j.iffa.1. ryv KOI\IO.V 
boh arm 5" 

13. <rvvo.ya.y(j)v\ Wettst. quotes 
a striking parallel from Plut. Cat. 
Minor, p. 772 o KXr}povofj.Lav . . . et 
dpyvpiov <rvva.yay(av, which suggests 
the possibility that vvvayayuv here 
may connote the idea of 'realising' 
his estate. 

acrcurws] Good Greek. Here only 
in the Greek Bible, ao-ama Eph. v. 
1 8, Tit. i. 6, i Pet. iv. 4. A good 
parallel to this verse is quoted from 
pap. Flor. 99. 6f. e?ret 6 vios ->}/xwv 
Kacrrcup fj.eO' ertpuv (kraiptav Zahn) 

3 / 3 / \ t r- 

e Ttt avrov 

UUV /XTtt/;?ttS 

(XTroAeaat KrA. 

14. tV^v/oa] A standing Greek 
epithet of AI/AOS. Cf. Thuc. iii. 85 
and other exx. in Wettst. 

15. y8o(r/<etv XOI/OODS] A degrading 
occupation, especially for a Jew. Cf . 
an old saying in Baba Qamma VII. 
vii. (Goldschmidt, vi. p. 298) "Cursed 
is the man who breeds swine, and 
cursed is the man who teaches his 
son Greek wisdom." 

1 6. Kepariiov] Pods of the carob- 
tree, Ceratonia siliqua, which still 
grows freely in Palestine and around 
the Mediterranean. 

17. ei's eairrbv Se eA^wv] A common 
Greek (and Latin) idiom, cf. Wettst. 
ad loc. " The Jews say To return to 
God," Wellh. 

16 xopTaffdyvai eK tfBDL 1-131 69 etc 
avrov arro A al pier b c q vg syrr( 

such a disposition was irrevocable. 
By this method of dealing with 
property, an owner was not tied by 
the provisions of the law as to 
inheritance (Numb, xxvii. 8 f.), and 
a son might even be disinherited. 
See S.B. iii. pp. 545 f. (on Gal. 
iii. 15). But in such cases the 
gift only became realisable at the 
death of the owner, i.e. the capital 
became the property of the recipient 
forthwith, but he did not enjoy the 
interest until the owner's death (ib. 
p. 551). S.B. therefore appear not 
to be right in citing this passage as an 
example of the procedure described 
(p. 549), for here it is clear that the 
younger son takes possession at once 
of his capital. But that this was 
not itself an unheard-of procedure is 
shewn by Ecclus. xxxiii. 19 f. (xxx. 
28 f.), where a father is warned 
against parting with his goods, " for 
it is better that thy children ask of 
thee than that thou shouldest look 
to the hand of thy sons." 

56etAei/ aurot?] There appears to 
be some inconsistency between this 
statement and the later part of the 
parable (vv. 29-31), where the elder 
son has not received his share but is 
still working for his father on the 
estate. We must not ask too many 

Trdvra Kal tirl TO, 


pio-Oioi TOV irarpos fiov Tcepio'O'evovTai aprwv, eya) Be \I/JLW 

1 8 wBe diroXXv/LLai' dvao~Ta<$ iropevao^ai Tcpos TOV irarepa 

aov Kal epw avTw tlurep, ij/jiapTOv et9 TOV ovpavov Kal 

19 evwTTiov aov, OVKCTL et'/tu ci^ios K\r)d)jvai vios aov nroirjcrov 

20 fjL6 &>9 eva TMV (JUcrOiwv (rov. Kal dvacrTas rjXOev irpos TOV 
Trarepa eavTov. en Se avrov fjiaicpav aire^ovTo^ elSev 
avTov o TraTrjp avTov /cat ea-TrXay^VLcrOr} /cal Spafioov eir- 
eirecrev eVt TOV Tpd^r]j\ov avTov /cal KaTecj)i,\r}o~ev CLVTOV. 

2 1 elirev Se o u/09 auroS TlaTep, rfj^apTov et? TOV ovpavov 

KOL evaiTTiov crov, OVKCTI, el/u,l a^to? K\f}OrjvaL vios <rof[' iroi- 

22 TJCTOV fjbe w? eva TWV n,Lo~6iwv o~ov\. elirev Be 6 iraTijp 

TOV? Sov\ov<> avTov Tap^f ejfeveyfcare <TTO\rjv 
Kal evBvaaTe avTov, Kal Sore BaKTV\iov et? 

23 %etyoa avTov Kal v7ro$rjfjLaTa et? TOU9 TroSa?, Kal <pepeT6 TOV 
fMOfr-ftov TOV GiTevTov, OvffaTe Kal (frayovTes v 

24 OTL OVTOS o vios uov VKpb<> r)V Kal avetycrev, rjv 

25 Kal evpedrj. Kal rjp^avTO evfypaiveaOai. TJV Be 6 v/09 avTov 
o Tcpeo'ftvTepos ev dyp(' Kal a>9 ep^ofAevos tfryryKrev Trj OLKICL, 

26 jJKOvcrev av^wvia^ Kal ^opwv, Kal Trpoo-KaXea-dfAevos eva 

27 TWV TraiSojv CTrvvOdveTo T'I av eirj TavTa' 6 Be elirev 

21 vtos ffov] add iroi-qaov fj.e ws ei>a TWV fjLiffdiwv aov tfBD 700 al syr.hl : om AL0 
I etc 69 etc al pier latt syrr( arm aegg Aug 5~ 

//,tcr$ioi] Here only in N.T. Tre/xo-- idiomatic Greek : Athen. v. 197 b 

creiWrai aprwi'] It is very natural uA.o7y>yer? . . . TT}S 77/316x^5 epeas. 

that theprodigal should first bestirred 24. Note the parallelism. No 

by the memory of the material com- marked distinction of meaning 

forts enjoyed by his father's servants. between the two members is to be 

1 8. t.<s rov ovpavov] A Jewish looked for. 

periphrasis for ei's rov Otov. 25. cru/>i(/>wvi'as i<al ^opwi/] 'music 

21,22. Before he has time to and dancing.' Two a?ra Aey. in N.T. 

make his request, the father interrupts Cf. Suet. Calig. 37 "discumbens de 

him. The addition of Trofyo-ov . . . die inter chores et symphonias," and 

IJnvOiwv crov, though attested by the numerous other quotations in Wettst. 

best uncials, may be rejected with But iri'/K/xWa here perhaps refers 

some confidence as an interpolation to a specific wind instrument as 

from v. 19. in Dan. iii. 5, 15. So Wellh. Cf. 

22. TTJV Tr/aojrT/j/] 'the best,' 'of Jerome, Ep. xxi. 29 "male autem 

the first quality,' cf. Ez. xxvii. 22 quidam de Latinis symphoniam 

Trp(i>Twv JjSvar/jidTMV KU.I At'&oi/ putant esse genus organi." 

The use is also found in 27. drrev UI'TO> OTL] OTL recitative. 


on *O dBe\(J)6$ crov rfKeu, teal edvcrev 6 Trarrjp crov TOV 
fjbocr'%ov TOV crirevrov, on vyiauvovra avrov drrekaftev. 

Be Kal OVK r)6e\ev icre\0etv. 6 Be irarrjp avrov 28 
TrapeKoXei avrov. 6 Be aTrotcpiOels elirev TO) irarpi 29 
avrov 'ISou rocravra err) Bov\evo) crot, Kal ovBeTrore ev- 
ro\t]V crov TraprjKdov, Kal e/jiol ovBeTrore e'Sw/ca? epicfrov 
iva uera rcov (friXcov uov evcppavOa)' ore Be 6 vios crov 3 
OTO? o Karacfraywv crov rov (3Lov per a Tropvwv r{\6ev, 
eOvcras avrip rov cnrevrov /JLOO-^OV. 6 Be elrrev avrw 3 ! 
TeKVOv, crv Trdvrore /xer' e/uoO el, teal irdvra ra epa ad 
ecrnv evcjypavdrjvai, Be teal %apf)vai e'Bei, ori 6 dBeX-tyos crov 3 2 
' ve/cpb<> rfv Kal etycrev, Kal aTroXwXaj? Kal evpeOrj. 

29. This is hard to reconcile with a coarse brutality. We are not told 
the statement in v. 12. See also and must not ask how tidings of 
v. 31. - his younger brother's fortunes had 

30. /xcTot Tropt/ojv] The elder reached him. 

brother expresses his abhorrence with 32. For the refrain cf. v. 24. 


The paragraph (peculiar to Luke, except v. 13) presents well-known diffi- 
culties. It is in the first place obvious that the parable of. the unjust steward 
is a parable in the strict sense: i.e. it is not, like the stories of the Good 
Samaritan, or the Pharisee and the Publican, a picture of conduct which is 
directly commended or reprobated, but it is a story from ordinary life in the 
world which is shewn to have a counterpart in the spiritual world. The 
master does not correspond to God, nor does his steward correspond to a 
disciple, and the flagrant dishonesty of the steward's procedure only comes 
into the question in so far as it enhances his skilful use of worldly opportunity 
to secure his worldly end. The characters no more serve to immediate edifica- 
tion than the reluctant friend (xi. 8) or the unjust judge (xviii. 2). The 
emphasis falls upon the steward's ' prudence,' and an analogous ' prudence ' 
in another sphere is enjoined upon the disciples. 

But the parable, taken with the subsequent sayings, appears to be intended 
to commend prudence of a specific kind, viz. prudence in the use of wealth. 
This is the point of v. 9 which clearly refers back to v. 4 of the parable : as 
the unrighteous steward made use of his financial opportunities to secure 
his future when he had lost his P9st, so are the disciples to use the ' un- 
righteous mammon ' (i.e. wealth which is, in its own nature, ' unrighteous ') 


which comes to them, to secure a habitation in the eternal tabernacles, when 
wealth with all else that belongs to this world shall have failed. The sayings 
which follow continue the theme of the use of wealth, and, in the case of v. 10, 
the saying is possibly intended to guard against a misinterpretation of the 
parable. The concluding saying, v. 13 (|| Mt. vi. 24), comes no doubt from Q. 
It seems to be attached here because of the reference to mammon. But the 
point is quite different from that of the preceding sayings : not the right use 
of mammon, in view of the world to come, but the impossibility of serving 
mammon and God, is the moral taught. 

The blessedness of poverty (vi. 20) and injunctions to part with all worldly 
possessions (xii. 33) are themes which we have already found in passages 
peculiar (in form at any rate) to this Gospel, and a similar attitude lies behind 
the parable of Dives and Lazarus below , on the prima facie interpretation 
the parable of the unjust steward harmonises with these other passages. 
Nevertheless it is questioned by some critics whether the parable of the unjust 
steward was originally concerned to point the particular moral of prudence in 
the use of mammon (as is certainly implied in v. 9) and not rather prudence 
in general. J. Weiss, who adopts this view on literary grounds to be noted 
shortly, compares the saying of Mt. x. 16 " Be ye wise (^povt/zot) as serpents." 
The serpent is not more attractive as an animal than the unjust steward as a 
specimen of human kind, yet both represent a quality which has a legitimate 
and essential place in the character of the disciple, viz. prudence. Prudence 
in the attainment of an end is, in itself, a quality to be admired, even in a 
dishonest servant.. If the parable stopped at v. 8 this is the interpretation 
that we should naturally adopt. It is v. 9 which introduces the idea of the use 
of wealth into the application. Jiilicher (ii. p. 505) and J. Weiss both regard 
v. 9 as a later pendant, and the curious literary construction of vv. 8, 9 give 
some support to this conclusion. Who is o i<vpLo<$ in v. 8 ? If it is the lord 
of the steward (v. 3) it is at least remarkable that he should ' praise ' his 
dishonest servant's ' prudence,' and further, a very awkward transition is 
involved in the remaining half of the verse which cannot possibly represent 
the sentiments of the steward's master, but must be intended for the comment 
of Jesus. These difficulties are avoided if we interpret o Kvpios in v. 8 of 
Jesus ; cf . xviii. 6. But it is hard to suppose that the evangelist himself 
intended this, in view of the sudden transition to the first person in v. g. 
Wellhausen, who holds that the parable always and throughout teaches the 
proper use of mammon, interprets o Kvpios of Jesus and regards the second 
ort of v. 8 as the equivalent of lemor, ' saying,' so that Sb and 9 are con- 


tinuous direct speech giving the context of Jesus' words of approval. Well- 
hausen compares xviii. 6 f. et'vrei/ oe 6 Kvpios 'AKovcrare . . . Aeyco VJMV OTL 
. . . But this parallel, though striking so far as it goes, does not support the 
difficult interpretation of the second cm, which, after the intervening clause 
on c/>poi///AWs evrouycrei', it is hard not to translate ' for ' or ' because.' These 
problems are certainly eased if, with Julicher and J. Weiss, we suppose v. 9 to 
be a later addition, and on this hypothesis the interpretation of the parable as 
teaching the prudent use of wealth is secondary. I am unable to understand 
why Bultmann should think v. 8 also to be secondary (G.S.T. p. 109). Some 
indication must always have been needed as to where a moral was to be 
found in this unedifying story. 

Be KOL Trpos TOVS /jLaOijrds *AvOpW7ro<s TK r/v I 
09 ei-^ev OLKOVO/JLOV, KOL 

TCL virp^ovTa avrov. KOI (jwvra-as avrov 2 
elirev CLVTM Tt TOVTO d/cova) Trepi crov ; avroSo? TOV \6yov 
T^? oiKOVopjias aov, ov jap &vvr) en, oltcovopeiv. eiirev 3 
Se eV eavrw o OLKOVO/JUOS Tt iroLrjaa) OTI 6 icvpios /JLOV 
rrjv ouKovofjiiav air e^ov ; GKaTrreiV OVK la^yw, 

eyvwv T'L 7ronj(ra), f iva orav f^era- 4 

crraBo) K Trj$ al/covo/Mia? Befavrai /ze 649 roi/9 OIKOVS eavrSiv. 
KOL r rrpocrica\ea'dfjLvo$ eva eicacrTov rwv ^peocj)i\eTCt)V TOV 5 

1. e'A.eyev Se Kat Trpbs TOV<S fj.aOrjT(i^\ 3. The steward's reflections are 
/ecu probably indicates that the scene expressed in soliloquy; cf. xii. 17, 
remains the same. The previous where the form of the soliloquy is 
parables had been addressed to the closely similar to this : Tt 7rot?y(rw ; 
Pharisees. Jesus now addresses the . . . KU.L eurei/ Touro 7roi?;(j-<o. 
disciples. But the Pharisees are o-KUTrreti/ OVK tcr^voi] Proverbial. 
still to be thought of as in the back- Cf. Aristoph.^ircZs 1432 rt yap ir<Wu> ; 
ground, for they overhear what is (rKaTrreiv yap OVK 7ri'crraju.ui, and 
said, and by their mockery call other passages in Wettst. 

forth a further rebuke (v. 14). eVutTeti/] ' to beg.' In Gk. from 

TrAow-to?] Attribute, not predicate. Homer onwards. In N.T. only here 

2. rt TOVTO a.Kov(D Tre/Jt croG ;] and xviii. 35. 

'What is this that I hear about you ?' 4. e'yvo>i>] Aoristus tragicus, ' I am 

not ' Why do I hear this about you ?' decided.' A sudden idea comes to 

The abbreviated form (for T'I ecrrt him. Se^toi/ru/] The construction is 

TOVTO o /crA.) is probably a Semitism. awkward. We must understand 

Cf. Gen. xlii. 28 T'I TOVTO eVotryo-ei/ o from what follows ot ^peo/n/XeTttt as 

^eb? t][uv ; Svvy] For this form cf. subject. 

Mk. ix. 22; Rev. ii. 2. It is rejected 5. eVa c/cao-Toi/] The two cases 

by Phryn. cccxxxvii. which follow are to be regarded as 


Kvpiov eavrov 

6 KvpUp fjbov ; 6 be elirev *EiKarov /3drov$ e\aiov o Se elirev 
avrw Ae^o-t crov TO, ypdfjL/jiara Kal KaOicras ra^eco? 

7 ypd^oif TrevrrjKovra, eireira erepco eiirev Su Se nrocrov 
ocj)ei\eL<; ; 6 Be elTrev EiKarov Kopovs crlrov \ejei avrco 

8 Ae|m crov ra ypd/jifjiara Kal ypdtyov oySoiJKOvra. Kal 
eiryvGcrev o Kvpios rov OLKOVOJAOV T>)? a&iidas on cj)povL/jia)S 
eTTOLrjcrev' on ol viol rov alcovos rovrov c^povifjiutrepoL virep 
TOI? ui'oi;? TOU <CWTO? et? rrjv ryeveav rrjv eavrwv elcriv. 

9 Kat eyco viuv \eyct), eavrols Troirjcrare 0tXou9 e/c roO 

typical of the steward's dealings 
with the debtors. The relationship 
between the debtors and the steward's 
master is not entirely clear. Did 
they owe dues in kind to the master 
as landlord (cf. xx. 10), or are they 
in debt to the master for produce 
which they have themselves received 
from the estate ? It is in favour 
of the latter hypothesis that the 
steward holds acknowledgements of 
the debtors' receipts in their own 

Trocrov o^etAets] The question is 
perhaps designed to convey informa- 
tion to the reader rather than to the 
steward. But it serves to emphasise 
the extent of the debtor's obligation 
to the steward. 

/3arous] Heb. ri3. A liquid measure 
containing about 8|- gallons. Here 
only in N.T. 

6. The steward hands to the 
debtor the acknowledgement which 
he holds and invites the debtor to 
falsify his figure. 

7. i<6povs] Heb. "13. A dry measure 
amounting to about 10 bushels. 
Here only in N.T. 

oy8or)KovTa\ The difference in the 
figure (TrevTrjKovTo. v. 6) will be 
merely intended to give variety. 

8. TOV oiKovofjLov T'/]S dSiKt'us] Gen. 
for adj. as in Heb. Cf. v. g and 
xviii. 6. 

4 01 viol TOV cuwi/tfs TOVTOII] Those 
who belong entirely to this present 
age, as contrasted with those who 
look for the age to come. Cf. xx. 36 
rrys dj/currdureco? viol OVTZS (a Lucan 
insertion) and Mt. xiii. 38. 

TOV? vtovs TOV ^wros] As contrasted 
with this present age of darkness, 
the age to come may be thought of 
as ' light ' and its citizens as ' sons 
of light.' The phrase is not found 
elsewhere in the synoptic Gospels, 
and according to S.B. it is not 
rabbinic. But cf . Jo. xii. 36 ; I Thess. 
v. 5 ; Eph. v. 8. 

cts rrjv yei/eav TI)V loumov] The 
phrase suits well 'the sons of this 
age' who are concerned to adapt 
themselves to the men of their own 
generation. We must not try to 
find too close an analogy in the case 
of the ' sons of light.' Cf. the next 
verse and note. 

9. On the connexion of this verse 
with the preceding see the Introd. 
" As men may, according to the 
Gospel, lay up treasure in heaven by 
giving alms, so may they also thereby 
make friends in heaven. Yet there 
is here no thought of heavenly 
patrons, other than God himself 
least of all of the poor and of the 
recipents of the alms, who have come 
into heaven" (Wellh.). 

CK TOU /viu/zwi/tt r>ys uSuaus] * the 




9 K\LTT7) (vel eKAetTD?) X*B*DA9 i etc 
acgg Clem | Cyr : e^XtTnyTe (vel 
Chry Iren (lat) Orig (lat) 5" 
v^erepov XAD codd et verss pier Bas Cy 

iSt/aa?, 'iva orav K\i7rrj &e%a)VTai v t 
cncTjvas. o 7rt<TT09 ev eA,cty tcrrft) K.CLI ev TroXXw I O 
39 ecrnv, KOI o ev e'Xa^urr&> a'8tro9 /tat eV TroXXoS 
O&IKOS ea-Tiv. el ovv ev TM dBitca) LLaitcava TTicrrol OVK I I 

t * ' ' t 

eyevecrde, TO d\7]0(,vov Tt9 ycuz> Trta-revo-ei ; KOL el ev TW 1 2 
d\\oTpiM TTtcrrol ou/e eyeveade, TO rj/Jberepov T/9 Bwcrei 
vplv; QvBels OLKerijf Bvvarat, Bv&l KVpiois Bov\eveiv rj 1 3 

69 al a (defecerint e cum boh codd ) syrr ai'm 
ca al mult latt syr.hl Clem ^ Method 
12 rjfj.ercpoj' BL Orig : e/^o?' 157 e i 1 Tert : 
: Orig (lat) Cypr r 

the dwelling-places of the holy, and 
the resting-places of the righteous." 

10. Various sayings are appended 
connected with wealth. We pass 
here to a quite different thought 
in relation to the use of wealth: 
he that is faithful in a small trust, 
is faithful in a great trust. The 
idea and the wording recall the 
parable of the talents, cf . xix. 17 = 
Mt. xxv. 21. We may conjecture 
that the saying in this place is 
intended to guard against a possible 
misinterpretation of the parable of 
the unjust steward. 

1 1 . If you have not been faithful 
with mere worldly wealth, who will 
entrust to you the genuine treasure 
of heaven ? Faithful use of wealth 
continues to be the chief thought, 
but we return to the idea of v. 9, 
that wealth is an alien possession. 
This is more definitely stated in the 
next verse : ef T(U aXXorpuo . . . 
TO r)fj.eTepov. W.H. follow B in 
reading ^//erepov. The meaning is 
not essentially different from the 
strongly attested I'^erepov : ' that 
which is truly man's.' ~ But rj/Aerepov 
is awkward followed by vp-iv. If we 
read ly/xerepov we must suppose that 
Jesus sets himself along with other 
heirs of the kingdom. 

13. Yet another thought on wealth. 
Devotion to mammon is not com- 

unrighteous mammon,' which does 
not properly belong to man at all. 
We have here a close analogy to the 
thought of the parable, as Wellh. 
points out. As the unjust steward 
used ' wisely ' the property which 
was not his own, so are the disciples 
to use ' wisely ' the w.ealth of this 
world, to which they have no proper 

orai/ e'/fAtV)?] i.e. when wealth, 
with all worldly things, fails, either 
by the coining of the new age, or 
by the death of the individual. The 
latter thought probably predomin- 
ates, cf. xii. 20, and the meaning is 
not essentially different from that of 
the inferior reading orav l/cAiV^re. 

Se^coyTtu] Cf. Se(jui/Tou v. 4, but 
the subject here is really God. The 
grammatical subject is possibly 
'angels' used as a periphrasis for 
God, or more probably the 3rd 
person plural active is simply an 
equivalent for the passive, and is 
used as though it were the passive, 
to avoid naming God ; cf. Joma viii. 
9, " He who says, I will sin and then 
turn myself ... to him give they no 
opportunity^ to perform penitence," 
and other exx. in S.B. Cf. vi. 38, 
xii. 20. 

' ei9 ras cuow'ous cr/o/i'u?] ' the 
eternal dwellings.' Cf. Enoch xxxix. 
4, " And then I saw another vision, 


yap TOV eva fjbio~r)o~ei Kal TOV erepov a^airriareL, r\ evbs 
avde^erai teal TOV erepov Karafyaoviqa-ei. ov $vva<r6e 6ew 

14 SovXeveiv /cal /^a/mcova. "H/covov Se Tavra Trdvra 
ol Qapicraloi (j)i\.dpyvpoi v7rdp%ovT6S, Kal e 

1 5 avTov. Kal euTrev avrols T/^et? eVre ol 

vs evwTTiov TWV avOpwiroav, o Se #09 <yivc*)o-Ki ra? 
vfjuwv OTL TO ev ctv6pd)7roi$ v^rrfkbv fB$e\v<yfjia evw- 

16 TTLOV TOV Oeov. 'O vofjios Kal ol 'jrpo(j)rJTat 
aTTo Tore r\ /3ao~L\eia TOV 6eov e 

patible with devotion to God. The 
saying is identical with that in Mt. 
vi. 24 except that Lk. has added 
ot/cerr^s to explain 

14. (f>L\dp'yvpoi 
"Money-making generally agrees well 
with religious separatism, both among 
Jews and Christians" (Wellh.). The 
connexion of the sayings which follow 
(vv. 14-18) with what precedes and 
with one another is obscure. The 
arrangement is probably editorial. 

15. We may perhaps supply an 
unexpressed concession : " You do 
indeed give alms, but you only do so 
to justify yourselves before men" 
(cf. Mt. vi., where, in accordance with 
Jewish usage, SiKaLoo-vvr) consists of 
fasting, almsgiving, and prayer). The 
thought continues : " God knows 
your covetous hearts, and your good 
report among men increases your 
condemnation before God." 

1 6- 1 8. We now leave the particular 
topic of covetousness, and the wider 
issues of the conflict between Jesus 
and Pharisaism are touched upon. 
The old order was in force until John. 
From his time the kingdom of God 
is preached and all men enter (v. 16). 
It must not be supposed that this 
abrogates the law. On the contrary, 
the entire law stands (v. 17). It 
stands because it has been fulfilled. 
Moses permitted, and Jesus forbade, 
divorce. But Jesus, in so doing, 

brought to light the inner meaning 
of the ancient law (v. 18). Some 
such connexion may be conjectur- 
ally supposed to have been in the 
evangelist's mind. The topic of 
divorce is introduced abruptly and 
leads no further. It is introduced 
as a striking instance of conflict 
between the teaching of Jesus and 
the Jewish law. Therefore it is set 
side by side with the assertion of the 
permanence of the law in order to 
affirm the paradoxical claim that 
the law is at once ended and in 

1 6. The saying clearly has a 
common origin with Mt. xi. 12-13 
Se T(uv TjfMepwv 'Icoavov TOV 

ecus aprt f) /3acriA.eia 
ovpavuiv f3iderai, KOLL f3ia<rTal 

avrrjv. Travres yap 01 
KOL 6 vo/xos coos 3 I<uai/oi> 
. The meaning of the 
Matthaean saying is very obscure. 
Reference may be made to Harnack, 
S.B.A., 1907, pp. 948 f., who assigns 
a favourable meaning to /?iaeTa6, 
/3tacrTai: the kingdom belongs by 
right to those who storm it; and 
to Dibelius (Urchr. Uberlief. von 
Johannes d. Tdufer, pp. 24 f.), who 
interprets of the evil spirits, ot 
dpx o]/Tes TOV KOO-/J.OV TOVTOV (i Cor. 
ii. 6-8), which do violence to the 
kingdom in this present age. For 
the more usual and apparently 






^vKoirwrepov Se <TTIV rov ovpavov teal 1 7 
TTcupeXOelv rj rov vofjiov piav Kepeav Trzaeiv. 
a7ro\va)v T^V jwalrca avrov KOI yap,wv erepav 1 8 

more probable interpretation, of the 
Zealots, who urged that the divine 
assistance should be secured by revolt 
from Rome (cf. Jos. Ant. xviii. I. i), 
see B. T. D. Smith, ad loc. From 
a literary point of view the version 
given here may be confidently pro- 
nounced secondary. Luke prob. felt 
the obscurity and has given a clear 
but different meaning to the words : 
the ancient order endured till John ; 
from his time the kingdom is preached 
and all men force their way in. 
Here we have the characteristic Lucan 
emphasis entirely absent in Mt. xi. 
12 on the universality of the Gospel. 
eiiayyeAir$tti is a favourite Lucan 
word. In Mt. /3ideT<u is passive, 
as is shewn by /JiavTal a^7raovcriv, 
* the kingdom suffers violence.' Here 
is middle. In Mt. the verb 
eucrav is perhaps intended to 
leave open the present validity of 
the law. After John the law no 
longer 'prophesied,' but it was not 
therefore necessarily abrogated as 
law. The Lucan version makes the 
breach inaugurated by John explicit. 
17. The saying is also found in a 
somewhat longer form in Mt. v. 18. 
/xtu Kcpeu] Usually interpreted of the 
marks which distinguish the letters 
T from n, n from n, 2 from 3. Cf. 
Orig. Select, in Psalm. (Lommatsch, 
xi. p. 363) rov X**^ l<a ^ r v fi"*lO 

TToAA^l/ OfJ.OiOT'TJTa CT<ooVT(Ol/, 0)5 

/card jurySei/ dAAryAwi/ StaAAarreti/ 
)} fipa^iff, Kf.pu.ui. fJ-ovYj. But ace. 
to S.B. (i. p. 248) the Ke/jeu, is an 
ornamental stroke added to single 
letters of the alphabet. 

The attitude of a great personality 
to the institutions among which he 
lives may often appear equivocal to 
outsiders, and be capable of differing 

interpretations by his followers. This 
saying merely repeats the funda- 
mental dogma of Judaism that the 
Mosaic law, in all its parts, is eternal. 
Cf. Bar. iv. i ; Tob, i. 6 ; 4 Esdr. 
ix. 37; Philo, Vita Mos. ii. 14 f. 
p. 136 TO. 8e TOVTOV fjiovov f3z/3aia, 

u.<f> fj< 


avra atwra 

dOdvara, ecu? ai/ ir|Aios at 

Kttt 6 en'/ATras ovpavos re Kat /<otr/.ios 


In view of other passages in the 
Gospels (e.g. the stories dealing .with 
Sabbath observance, or the saying on 
divorce which here follows) it is hard 
to think that Jesus would have ex- 
pressed himself in these words. Yet 
it is at any rate certain that it must 
have been plausible for many of the 
early believers to suppose that he 
had done so, and that is highly 
significant. Jesus criticised the law 
at particular points, but the question 
of the validity of the law as a whole 
did not arise before the Gentile 
Mission. Faced by that challenge 
the Judaizing Christians would be 
strengthened by the belief that the 
Master had spoken thus. The saying 
attributed to Jesus retained its place 
in the tradition, even when the issue 
over the law was no longer alive. 
For rov v6fj.ov Marcion substituted 
TWI/ Aoywv /j.ov. Cf. xxi. 33. 

1 8. In Jewish law the man alone 
has power to divorce. In Mk. x. 
12 the case of a woman divorcing 
her husband is considered. This case 
could not arise in ordinary Jewish 
society. Here and in Mt. v. 32 
divorce by the man is alone con- 

vei, KOI o a r rroke\vfJiev'r]V airo dvBpos 

sidered. A man who divorces his would fall within the age of Jesus, 

wife and marries another commits but it does so doubtfully (Sanh. vii. 

adultery. The divorce in itself is 2), and Josephus's casual assertion 

wrong, but the adultery consists in that the penalty for adultery was 

the second marriage. (The case is death is rather an antiquarian note 

the same as that of Mk. x. 1 1 . In than a record of experience (Apion. 

Mt. v. 32 the point is made that ii. 25)" (Abrahams, Studies, i. p. 73). 

the man by divorcing his wife makes But Jewish feeling did not cease to 

her commit adultery, i.e. if she marry regard the marriage tie as already 

another.) In virtue of the same broken by the woman's adultery, 

principle a man who marries a for the man was compelled by the 

divorced woman commits adultery, later Jewish law to divorce his wife 

for she is really the wife of another for proven adultery (of. Abrahams, 

man. (This is the same case as op. cit. p. 74). ^ The teaching of 

Mt. v. 32b.) Divorce is here Jesus as given in Mk. and Lk. is 

spoken of without qualification. In in itself compatible with the view 

Mt. v. 32 and xix. 9 an exceptive that Jesus challenged this general 

clause is introduced : ' except for principle, and asserted, in opposition 

unchastity.' There can be little thereto, that the marriage bond 

doubt that this is an interpretative was (as Western canon law holds) 

gloss. Yet though a gloss it seems on in itself indissoluble. But it is per- 

the whole probable that it preserves haps more probable that the case 

the actual purport of the teaching of the woman's adultery is not here 

of Jesus. Under the Mosaic law the considered. Full justice is done to 

woman's adultery was punishable the words of Jesus if we suppose 

by death (Deut. xxii. 22, cf. Jo. that he is dealing with the legal 

viii. 5). Thus the case of divorce right possessed by a Jewish husband 

after adultery could not arise. But to divorce his wife ' for any cause.' 

"it is not probable that the death Cf. Mt. xix. 3; Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 253 

penalty for adultery was inflicted at yvvau<u<s Se T>}S CTVVOIKOVO-IJS f3ov\6- 

all in the age of Jesus. The Jewish /^evos 8 'La.evx6fjva.i KaO' aa-SijTrorovv 

courts had lost the general power of amas, TroAAat 8' av rots dvOpuTrois 

capital punishment in the year 30 roiavrai yiyvoivTO . . . For a 

A.D. (T.J. Sanh. iSa, T.B. 4ia). The further discussion see Montefiore 

Mishnah cites a single case which (Synoptic Gospels] on the Gospel texts. 


Another Lucan story. See Introd. to x. 25 f. There are two distinct 
themes : (i) that compensation for conditions in this life is to follow death ; 
(2) that a miraculous appearance of one risen from the dead would not 
avail to convert those who are not converted by Moses and the prophets. 
In the former part of the story the whole emphasis falls upon the contrast in 
condition between the rich man and Lazarus during their life-time and the 
corresponding reversal in the next world. The teaching is that of the Lucan 
Sermon : " Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God .... Woe 


to you rich, for ye have your consolation " (vi. 20, 24). It would not be true 
to say that the moral aspect is left out : the ostentation of the rich man, 
while the beggar lies outside, suggests a harsh character. Yet this is not 
emphasised. The words of Abraham to the rich man give the leading thought : 
" Remember, my son, that thou in thy life-time receivedst thy good things, and 
Lazarus likewise evil things ; but now he is here comforted, and thou art 
tormented." In the latter part of the parable this theme is dropped. The 
intention of the latter half of the story is not entirely clear. The moral might 
have been pointed against the Sadducean position (of. xx. 27 f.). Moses and 
the prophets should have been enough to convince them of the world beyond. 
But there is little to suggest this particular intention. Bultmann, who holds 
that the second part of the parable is an appendix, argues that it does not 
move beyond the ordinary Jewish idea that no miracle is necessary to authen- 
ticate the Divine teaching already given by Moses and the prophets (cf. Deut. 
xxx. 11-14). This, however, is not exactly the point of the parable. The 
purpose for which the rich man desires Lazarus to be sent is not to authenticate 
God's word already given, but to move his brethren to repent lest they come 
to Hell. The possibility that the parable echoes Christian reflection upon 
the Jewish disbelief in the resurrection of Jesus must be allowed. One had 
risen from the dead, and yet the Jews had not believed. The explanation 
was that they did not rightly believe the revelation which they already 
possessed. This view is adopted by Loisy, who adds : "'The unity of the 
parable is maintained inasmuch as the rich man and Lazarus already 
personify Pharisaic Judaism and the mass of the Christians respectively " 
(p. 419). 

The highly coloured picture of life beyond the grave stands alone in the 
Gospels. The suggestion that some popular story has here been utilised and 
adapted seems not improbable. In a learned and interesting article (' Vom 
reichen Mann und armen Lazarus,' Abhandlungen d. preuss. Ak. d. Wissensch., 
Berlin, 1918, No. 7) Gressmann adduces striking parallels from Egyptian 
and Jewish sources which deal with the theme of the fate of the poor just 
man and the wicked rich in the next world. A demotic papyrus of the first 
century contains a story which itself probably dates from some centuries 
earlier, of how the god Horus was born as son to Setne, the son of Rameses II., 
and his sister- wife Meh-usechet. One day, at Memphis, Setne sees two corpses 
taken out to burial one that of a rich man, which is magnificently attired 
and attended by many mourners, and the other that of a poor man, which 
is carried out unattended on a humble mat. Setne exclaims how much better 



the rich fare in the nether-world than the poor. But his Divine son conducts 
him to the other world, and reveals to him the fortunes of the two men beyond 
the grave : " Seest thou this notable man, magnificently attired in royal 
linen, near by Osiris ? He is that same poor man whom thou sa.west, when he 
was carried out of Memphis to his grave without attendants, and covered up 
upon a mat. He was brought to the under-world, and his evil deeds were 
weighed against his good deeds. . . . Therefore it was ordered by Osiris that 
the grave clothes of the rich man should be given to the poor man, and that 
the poor man should be placed among the splendid and transfigured ones." 
Then the miserable fate of the wealthy and wicked man is also revealed, and 
the conclusion is drawn that " he who is good on earth, receives good in the 
underworld, but he who is evil on earth, receives evil " (cf. F.LI. Griffith, Stories ' 
of the High Priests of Memphis, pp. 42 f.). Gressmann* holds that this story 
travelled from Egypt to Palestine, where it was utilised and adapted by the 
Jews. The parable in the Gospel reproduces a well-known tale, which Jesus 
has appropriated, appending thereto a new and characteristic conclusion of 
his own (vv. 27-31), in which the true purpose of the parable is to be sought. 
The story underwent another and independent modification at the hands of 
Rabbis, who told a similar story of the death and burial of a poor but pious 
student of the law, and of a wealthy and godless publican. The Jewish version 
carries through consistently the doctrine of merit and corresponding punish- 
ment. Not only is the piety of the poor man rewarded in the next world, and 
the wickedness of the ungodly rich man punished, but it is revealed that the 
transient prosperity of the wicked man on earth was a reward for some slight 
good deed which he had performed, while the earthly misfortunes of the pious 
man were likewise due to a temporary lapse from the right way. The story 
appears in seven different versions, the earliest of which appears to be that in 
the Palestinian Talmud Chagiga, ii. p. 77 d. Gressmann further argues, follow- 
ing Harnack (T. u. U. xiii. i., 1895, pp. 75 f.; Th. Lit. Zeit. 1895, p. 428), that 
the names assigned to the rich man in Christian sources of the third century 
were borrowed from Jewish versions of the tale, and that the Jewish versions 
were recognised by Christian writers as in essence identical with the Christian 
parable. But the evidence here is far from conclusive. In the extant Hebrew 
versions the poor man has no name, and Gressmann's attempt to derive the 
names assigned to the rich man in Christian writers from the name given in 
Jewish sources depends upon too many conjectural corruptions to carry much 
weight. See v. 19 n. 



TJV TrXovcrios, ' Kal eveSiSvfrKero 19 



7rv\a)i>a avrov 


^opra- 2 1 


aXka Kal 01 Kvves epftouevoi, eVeXet^oz/ ra e\Kirj 

21 TrXoutnou] add /cat ouSets eStSov aurw (ex Lk xv. 16) 69 etc 1 m Aphr 

19 f. Jesus is to be thought of as 
still addressing the co vetous Pharisees, 
cf. v. 15. He addresses himself again 
to the disciples at xvii. I. 

19-20. (iv0pu>TTO<s Se TIS fjv irX.ov- 
(rtos . . . TTTW^OS 8e rts dvo/xari 
Adapo<s] This is the only case in 
which a proper name is assigned to a 
character in a Gospel parable. The 
coincidence of the name with that 
of the brother of Martha and Mary 
in Jo. xi. is noteworthy. Already 
in the third century Origen found it 
necessary to combat the view that the 
Lazarus of the parable was identical 
with the Lazarus of Jo. xi. (In Joann. 
fragm. 77, ed. Brooke, ii. p. 286). 
The name was common, but in view 
of vv. 30, 31 (cf. Jo. xii. 10) it is 
hard to escape the suspicion that the 
identity of name is not accidental. 
J. Weiss suggests that either the 
name Lazarus was introduced into 
the text here under the influence of 
Jo. xi. at the time of the formation 
of the Canon, or the story of the 
raising of Lazarus was already in 
circulation at the time of the com- 
position of the Gospel, and that the 
conclusion of the parable may have 
been composed and added and the 
name Lazarus incorporated under the 
influence of that story. The former 
alternative seems most unlikely. The 
dialogue in vv. 23 f. between Abraham 
and the rich man makes it indis- 
pensable that the poor man should 
have a proper name by which the 
rich man can refer to him; cf. esp. 

v. 24 Tre/j.\l/ov Adfapov. The latter 
suggestion is attractive. Another 
possibility is that Jo. xi. is itself 
influenced by the conclusion of this 

By the third century names were 
provided for the rich man also. The 
Sahidic version names him Nineve. 
In pseudo-Cyprian De pascha com- 
putus (A.D. 242-243) he is called 
Finaeus. This is, no doubt, the same 
as Phinees, the name given in Pris- 
cillian, Tract ix. Gressmann conjec- 
tures that both Nineve (Xii/ouos) and 
Phinees (^ti/ouos) are independent 
corruptions of Mij/atog, a conjectural 
Greek equivalent for | s yD"] rV"O, the 
name of the rich publican in the 
Jewish story of Pal. Talm. Chagiga, 
77 d. This seems precarious. M. R. 
James, J,Th.S. vii. (1906), pp. 
564 f., quotes a marginal note from 
a versified Bible of Peter of Riga 
(end of I2th cent.) which names the 
rich man Amonofis. 

19. 7rop<f>vpuv i<al /Svarcrov] A 
purple garment would be worn over 
linen undergarments. For the com- 
bination cf. Rev. xviii. 12, Prov. 
xxix. 40 (xxxi. 22). /3i'o-(ros a 
Semitic loan-word (pill) long natural- 
ised in Greek. On the material and its 
manufacture in Egypt see reff. s.v. 
fivvo-ivos in M.M. 

21. iirL0i>n<j)v \opracrOriva.i\ Cf. 
XV. 16. aAAd KOU ot Kwes KT/\.] 
We must probably take this as an 
aggravation of the poor man's dis- 
tress, not as an alleviating circum- 


22 avrov. eyevero 8e drrodavelv rov irrw^ov teal d7reve%0ijvai, 
avrov V7TO rcov d^ye\wv el? rov tcokTrov 'Aftpadju,' dir- 

23 eOavev Se KOI o TrXovcrto? real erd<f>r). Kal ev rc3 aSrj 
eVapa? roi/9 o<j)()a\iJLOv<? avrov, virdp^cov ev (Saadvois, opa 
'Afipaa/ju arro fjiarcpoOev Kal Ad^apov ev rots ic6\rroi<$ 

22-23 era0?7. KO.L ev TO> 0,877 eTra/ras b f : orn /ecu #* q ft" 2 vid aeth : sepultus est 
aput inferos et de inferno elevans a: sepultus est in inferno. 
[e]levans autem (m et elevans) c e 1 m vg : was buried and? cast? in 
Sheol he lifted up syr.sin 

stance (as though the dogs shewed a Jo. xiii. 23 and supra., xiii. 29) is 

kindness which men refused). The uncertain. The former seems more 

poor man is unable to fend off the congruous. The phrase occurs once 

vagrant dogs. To an oriental the in the Talmud (T. B. Qiddushin, 

dog is an unclean animal. 72 b), but its meaning there is doubt- 

22. uTrevexflvyi'ai avrov virb TOJV ful. Cf. Abraham's Studies, ii. p. 

ayye/Wv] That the soul is carried 203. For the idea that the patri- 

away at death by supernatural beings archs receive the faithful departed 

is a widespread idea. For the rab- cf. 4 Mace. xiii. 17 oi'rws TradovTas 

binic doctrine (first attested by R. ?}//,as 'A/fyaa/x /cat 'Icraa/v KOU 5 Ia/ca>/2 

Meir c. A.D. 150) of 'the angels of VTroSt^ovrai. 

service ' and ' the angels of destruc- KOU cra<r/] Not a superfluous 

tion,' who encounter the souls of addition. No token of the divine 

the righteous and of the godless re- judgement and failure to receive 

spectively at death, see S.B. 'ad loc. burial would be accounted such 

The conception here is that at death was manifested on earth. Cf. S.B. 

the departed go at once to their ad loc. 

appropriate place. Without awaiting 23. Iv TW '817] i.e. Sheol, the place 
a 'last judgement,' the righteous of the departed. Properly distinct 
are taken to join the patriarchs in from Gehenna, the place of torment 
heaven or Paradise, and the un- to which the wicked are committed 
righteous are surrendered to torment after judgement. But when the idea 
in Hades ; cf. xxii. 43. Nothing here of judgement at death becomes pre- 
leads us to suppose that an ' inter- valent, as in the Jewish Hellenistic 
mediate state' is being pictured, world of thought, the conception of 
According to S.B. (ii. p. 227) there Sheol or Hades is modified. In Enoch 
is in the old Jewish literature no trace xxii. there are adjoining quarters of 
of the use of the term ' Abraham's torment and blessedness in Sheol for 
bosom ' to describe that part of Sheol the evil and the good until the judge- 
or Hades set apart for the righteous, ment. Elsewhere in Enoch (xxxix.) 
nor is the Garden of Eden or Paradise the dwellings of the righteous are in 
ever located in Sheol. ' To lie in heaven. The ' geography ' is equally 
Abraham's bosom' plainly means to vague in this passage. S.B. (Ex- 
enjoy close fellowship with the patri- cursus Scheol, iv. p. 1019) wish to 
arch, but whether the metaphor is keep the usual N.T. meaning of aS?/s 
drawn from the relation of parent in this passage as the place of the 
and child (cf. Jo. i. 18) or from the departed and think that both Lazarus 
proximity of fellow-banqueters (cf. and the rich man are in Hades or Sheol, 


avrov. /cal avrbs (jxavrjaas elirev Tldrep 'A./3pad/ji, e\e^- 24 
(Tov yu-e Kal Tre/JL-^rov Ad^apov Iva ftdtyrj TO a/cpov rov 
BaKTV\ov avrov vBaros Kal Karatyv^rj rrjv ryXwaadv fJiov, 
on oBvvMjjiaL ev rrj (j)\o<yl ravrrj. el'jrev Be 'A(3pad/j, Te- 25 
KVOV, fJuvr/aO^n on aire\a^e^ ra dyaOd crov ev rfj far) 
(TOV, KOL Ad^apo? o//,otft>9 ra /ca/cd' vvv Be a)Be irapaKa\el- 
rat CTV Be oBvvacrat. Kal ev Trdcri rovrois pera^v rj/Jiwv 26 
Kal V/JLMV %da-/jLa fieja eo-rtfpiKrai, 6V<09 ol 6e\ovT6<? Bia- 
ftfjvai evdev TT^O? v/u-a<? fj,r) SvvaiVTaL, fjirj&e eKeWev Trpof 

SiaTrepwcnv. elirev Be Epcorw ere ovv, irdrep, iva 27 
avrov et9 rov OLKOV rov irarpo^ /JLOV, e^a> yap 28 
irevre dBe\(f)ovs } OTTW? BiafJLaprvprjraL avrols, Iva fjur) /cat 

25 w5e codd et verss paene omn : o5e I etc Diat (ut vid cf Burkitt Ev. da, Meph. 
vol. ii. p. 136) 5" : in verss latt hie et w5e et o5e reddere potest 

but separated from one another by transition to the second part of the 

the ' great chasm.' So also Bousset, parable. If Lazarus cannot come 

Eel. d. Jud. 3 pp. 293 f. But this to the rich man in Hades, at least 

verse seems rather to favour the let him be sent to the rich man's 

view that the rich man alone is Iv aSy. brethren on earth, that they may 

If so, Hades is here used almost as repent while there is yet time. 

equivalent to Gehenna (for this usage ev Tracrt TOVTCHS] In all this con- 

cf. S.B. iv. p. 1017), and this view dition of things. there is a further 

seems to be supported by the ob- point. The reading ITTL (AD, etc.) 

servation of S.B. that the term for iv (KB al) is easier and no 

'Abraham's bosom' is not used of doubt secondary, but it must give 

a part of Sheol in Jewish literature, the right sense : ' in addition to all 

Cf. v. 22 n. this.' It is too bald to translate, with 

24. Ilare^ 'Af3padfjiJ] Abraham is, Lagrange, ' in all these regions.' 

and remains, the father of them both. xuoyia /ya.] This does not appear 

Cf. TCKI/OI/ v. 25. to be a usual feature in Jewish 

i'Saros] In En. xxii. g f . there is a eschatological conceptions. The \d- 

spring of water in the dwellings of (r/xara in Plato, Rep. x. 614 (Myth 

the righteous dead. Cf. also Ckagiga of Er) are the two ways by which 

77 d, where the poor but pious the souls depart after judgement, 

student of the law is seen in a dream and provide no parallel to this 

by his fellow, wandering at his ease passage. 

in gardens and by springs of water, 27. Cf. Hep. x. 614 D etTretv on 

while the godless man (like Tantalus) Scot O.VTOV ayyeAov av$paj7rois ye- 

stretches out his tongue from the veo-$ai TOJV e/<et Kal SiaKeXevoivro ol 

bank at a stream of water which he UKQWIV re KOU d^ao-dat TrdvTa TO. 

is unable to reach. ev rw TOTTW. Lucian, Demon. 43 

26. The request of the rich man e/30/xevov Se rti/os ; Ilotu, VO/JLL^L<S emu 

not only ought not, but cannot be TO, ev ciSov ; Trept/ietvov, e'c/n/, KCXKCI- 

granted. This verse affords the dev <rot 


29 avrol e\6(i)(7i,v els TOV TOTTOV TOVTOV rr;? (Baadvov. 'Xeyei 
Be 'Afipadjj, "E^ovcrt M.a)v<7ea /cal rov? l 7rpo<piJTa<;' UKOV- 

30 adrwcrav avrwv. o Be elirev QV%L, Trdrep Aftpadu, d\7C 
edv rt? ttTro veicp&v iropevOy irpos avrovs p J eTavoricrov<Tiv. 

3 1 eljrev Be CLVTW E/' Mcouo-ew? teal TWV Trpo^rjTMV OVK 
aKovovcriv, ovB edv TLS EK veKpwv dvcLffTy TreicrQrio'ovTaL. 

XVII. I EiTrez/ Be Trpo? rovs fjba&rjTas avrov 'AvevBetcrov eanv 

TOV TO, a-fcdvBa\a jurj e\0elv, irK-^v oval Bi ov ep^erai,' 

2 Xfo-treXet avrw el ~ki6o<$ fjbv\iKo<; TrepiKeiraL irepl TOV rpd- 

r Xy\ov avrov KOI eppLTrrai els rr)V 6d\a<raav TJ 'tva cncav- 

31 avaarrfl aire'XB'i] (vel simile) syr.sin lat.vt : avaa-Tt} KO.I aTre\0r) D Iron 

31. The reading of syr.sin and I. a.vevStKTov'] Here only in N.T. 

lat.vt (preferred by Blass and Merx) and rare elsewhere, but cf. xiii. 33 

may be ascribed to the influence OVK ei/Se^erou, 'it is not possible' 

of 7Topev6y above. If, as is prob- likewise OLTT. Aey. 

able, dvacrTy be the original reading, TO, crKavSaXa] (ri<dvSaXov not 

the resurrection of Jesus (or of infreq. in LXX as equivalent for 

Lazarus? cf. Jo. xi.) and the sub- K^pID a 'bait,' or 'lure,' and then 

sequent unbelief of the Jews can fig. 'snare.' So also in class. Gk. 

hardly have been absent from the crKav8dX.i)dpov means ' the spring 

mind of the evangelist. Cf. vv. 19, of a trap.' The idea of a snare or 

20 n. lure by which a man is liable to be 

i-io. Four disconnected sayings, entrapped into sin is perhaps the 
There appears to be no unity of dominant idea connoted by the word 
thought. Parallels to the first three in the N.T. rather than ' stumbling- 
occur in Matthew in fairly close block.' Cf. M.M. and P.B. s.v. 
proximity. The arrangement, there- 2. AvcrtTeAei] Good classical Greek, 
fore, may go back to Luke's source. LXX. Here only in N.T. 

1-2. On Scandals. There is a XWos /xvA6/<os] Prob. Lk.'s cor- 

parallel to this saying in Mt. xviii. rection for the more picturesque 

6-7, where, however, the two clauses fj.vXo<s OVIKOS (Mt. and Mk.). On 

occur in inverse order. There is also the meaning of the latter term 

a parallel to v. 2 in Mk. ix. 43 (a mill-stone turned by an ass) see 

(omitted, with the rest of this section, Lagrange, p. 551. 

in Lk.). Mt. has perhaps con- Jesus propounds no theory of the 

flated Q and Mk. (Mk. eVa TWJ/ origin of evil. Its existence is recog- 

fjLiKp&v TOTJTWV T<3i/ TTicrTei'ovTtoi' : nised and its necessity affirmed, but 

so Mt. + ei's e//,e), and Lk. may this recognition is coupled with a 

preserve the form of Q, though ' woe ' upon the man through whom 

verbal alterations are probable, temptation shall come even to the 

Another version of the saying is least and humblest. The addition 

quoted in Clem, ad Cor. xlvi. (with in Mk. Mt. TMV Trio-revovTiov [els 

rail' eKAeKTcoy fwv for rwv /xtK/acui/ e/^e Mt.] applies the saying to the 

TOVTWV). life of the Christian community. 


T0)v /jiLKpwv TOVTCOV eva. Trpocre^ere eavrois. eav 3 
d/JidpTr) 6 dBeXtyos o~ov eViTtyc/^croz/ avTw, teal eav peTa- 
vorjo"T) d(pe<> avTW' teal eav eTrra/a? T?}? r)/j,epa<; d/jLapT7)O"fl et9 4 
ere teal eVra/a? eTricrTpetyy irpos ere \eyaiv Meravow, a<>- 

avTw. Kat elirav ol d r rrb<TTO\OL ro5 tcvpift) 5 

?//ur/ TT'KTTLV. elwev Be 6 Kvpios Et e^ere TTLCTTIV 6 
t>9 KOKKOV a-LvuTreoos, eXeyeTe av TTJ crvKafjiivw \ravTrj} 
'E/cyot^co^rt /cat (j)VTvdrjTL ev T?J 6a\d(ra"r)' Kal v7rijKov<rev 
av vfiiv. T/9 5e e vfiwv Bov\ov e^wv dpo- 7 

TpiwvTa TJ TroijjiaivovTa, 09 elcreXdovTL e'/c roO dypov epel avTw 

6 Taur?; om t<DL 

3-4. On. Forgiveness. Trpoo-c^ere in Mt. xvii. 20 b (appended to the 
eavrois] This phrase is frequent in Marcan narrative of the healing of 
Lk. (xii. i, xxi. 34; Ac. v. 35, xx. the lunatic boy) and Mk. xi. 23 
28) and peculiar to the Lucan writ- (=Mt. xxi. 21-22); cf. also I Cor. 
ings in N.T. It is perhaps intro- xiii. 2. The sycamine tree (in place 
duced here to make a connexion with of the mountain) is peculiar to Lk. 
the preceding saying : Take heed ' If ye have faith as a grain of 
how you treat others, take heed also mustard seed ' is common to Mt. 
to yourselves. Parallels to vv. 3-4 xvii. and Lk. (not in Mk.); 'cast 
in Mt. xviii. 15, 21-22. Mt. ap- into the sea' is common to Lk. 
pears to have expanded the former and Mk. xi. (=Mt. xxi.) (Mt. xvii. 
part of this saying into a rule of fj,erd/3a cvBev CKCI). Here, there- 
Church discipline. Here it is offences fore, Lk. appears to be dependent 
against the individual which are both upon Q (Mt. xvii.) and Mk. xi. 
in question throughout. Mt. does It is a probable conjecture that the 
not give the injunction to forgive crvKa/ui/os far less congruous as a 
until vv. 21-22. Peter's question in metaphor than the mountain : is due 
Mt. v. 21 may be editorial. Lk.'s to a recollection of the incident of 
version of the saying lays emphasis the O-VK-?J which Lk. has omitted 
upon the repentance of the sinner, from Mk. xi. Cf. Mt. xxi. 21 ov 
This is not the point in Mt. vv. 21-22. (JLOVOV TO TT}S cruK'/ys Trcm/creTe, dAAo, 
Mt. may be the more original here. KO.V TW o/oei Toimo etTrryre KT/\. 
Cf. Harnack, Sayings, p. 94. 7-10. The disciple a servant of God. 

5-6. On Faith. Verse 5 is an Peculiar to Luke. There appears to 

editorial introduction. Note the use be no connexion with what precedes, 

of aTToo-ToAoi and 6 Ki'pios. The conditions of a slave's life are 

Trpoo-^es 7/ju-ti/ TTICTTIJ/] ' bestow portrayed without comment or 

upon us more faith,' or perhaps criticism. The slave works all day 

better, ' give us also faith.' in the field, and does not expect to 

6. el e'^ere] A present unfulfilled be waited on when he returns. On 

condition should have the imperfect the contrary, he must first prepare 

in the protasis, ei'^ere (D al) is no his master's dinner and wait upon 

doubt a correction. , him, before he eats and drinks him- 

Parallels to this saying are found self. Nor does the master feel him- 



8 Et$eo)9 f rrape\6a)v avdireae, ciXX' ov^l epei avrw 

aov TL SeLirvijo-o), /cat Trepifaa-d/jievos Sia/covet JJLOI, 
(j)dya) Kal Trio), Kal pera Tavra (j)diye<rai KOI iriecrai, crv ; 

9 W ^X et/ %"/ tz/ T( P SovXct) on eiroiTjaev ra 
IO ouT&>9 KOL Vyiie 

v/juv, Xeiyere OTL AoOA,ot u^peioi 

orav TroiijcrrjTe irdvra ra 


9 add ou SOKW AD al pier latt S~ : om ^BLX I etc 157 a e syr.vt arm 
aegg aeth Cypr IO axpeioi om syr.siii 

self tinder any obligation to his 
servant for his services. So is the 
relation of the disciple to God. 
When we have fulfilled all our duties, 
we still have no claim on God. What 
God bestows is the gift of his good- 
ness, not requital for service rendered. 
Montefiore rightly emphasises that 
Jesus as well as the Rabbis was 
not afraid to speak of man's relation 
to God as that of slave and master. 
Both Jesus and the Rabbis from 
different points of view, and in 
different moods, taught both that 
God was man's Father, and that 
man was God's slave. "Neither is 
false." Montefiore continues : " It is 
most notable that man can claim no 
reward from God. That was not 
quite original teaching, but it was 
so relatively. The tilt against ex- 
aggerations and perversions of the 
doctrine of tit for tat is a prominent 
and characteristic feature of the 

teaching of Jesus. What we receive 
from God is grace and goodness and 
not reward. There is no doubt that 
the excessive emphasis and elabora- 
tion of the doctrine of retribution was 
one of the weak spots in Rabbinic 
Judaism" (Synoptic Gospels, vol. ii. 

P- 543)- 

The meaning of the parable is 
somewhat obscured by the adjective 
d)(ptioi in v. 10, if it is interpreted 
'unprofitable' as in Mt. xxv. 30. 
The emphasis must not fall on the 
quality of the service rendered, but 
on the circumstance that those who 
have done all are, at the end, servants 
and no more. Syr.sin omits the 
adjective, and this is preferred by 
Wellh. and J. Weiss. But a-^pdov 
may mean 'poor,' 'unworthy,' 
rather than ' useless ' ; cf . 2 Regn. vi. 
22. Thus interpreted the adjective 
helps to bring out the sense of the 


Peculiar to Luke. There are striking resemblances to the healing of the 
leper in Mk. i. 40 f., but ten lepers, not one, are healed, the healing itself is 
more marvellous, the command to the lepers to shew themselves to the priests 
plays a different part in the story, and the whole narrative leads up to the 
gratitude of the one alien and the ingratitude of the other nine. We may 
suppose that we are here given an ideal scene, founded upon the story in Mark, 
which has taken shape in a Gentile Church : Jesus is shown as the beneficent 


healer who lavishes his goodness upon all who need, and receives thankful 
homage from the alien. We ought not, therefore, to ask whether the ungrateful 
nine were, or were not, saved by faith (see v. 19). 

Kal eyevero ev T<O iropeveo-OaL els *\epovo-a\r)fj, KOI 1 1 
Sia jLeo~ov ^ajiaias Kal Ya\i\ala<s. Kal 1 2 

6iffep%o/jLevov avrov et<; TWO, KW^TIV u r jrr)VT r r)o~av 

\67rpol avftpeSt OL dvea-Tfjcrav iroppwOev KOI avrol fjpav 13 

(pcovrjv hteyovres 'l^crou eVtcrTara, eXeyaov r)fMa<?. Kal ISwv 14 
elirev avrois YlopevOevres erriAei2<vre eavrovs roTc iepeyciN. 

KOL eyevero ev rep virdyeuv avrovs eKaOapucrdijcrav. et? Se 1 5 

avrwv, IBaiv OTI Iddir), v-jrea-rpe^rev /j,era 

TOV Oeov, Kal eTre&ev eVt TrpoacoTrov irapa TOVS 1 6 
avrov ev^apta'Tatv avrw' Kal auro? TJV Z.ajjiapeLT'rjs. 

s $e 6 *\rj(rovs eiTrev V X ^ $f ca Ka6api- \J 
; OL [8e] evvea nrov ; ovy evpeOrjO~av vTrocrrpe'^ravre^ 1 8 
Sovvai &oav TW 6ew el p,rj o d\\o<yevr)<; OVTO? ; Kal eiirev 1 9 
avroS 'Az/acrra? iropevov rj Trtcrrt? &ov creawicev ere. 

II 5ia fj-effov"] ^effov D I etc 69 etc TaXtXatas] add et Hiericho lat.vt 

syr.cur : 28 habet St^/j^ero rtjv Iept%w /cat Sia pea-ov /crX. 17 ovx ot] ovrot 

D lat.vt syr.vt : oi/X' ot 5ea ourot AH al pane arm sah 

II. We are again (cf. xiii. 22) can hardly be 'through the middle 

abruptly reminded that Jesus is on of Samaria and Galilee ' if Jesus 

his way to Jerusalem. The mention was on the way to Jerusalem. It 

of Samaria explains how a Samaritan is better to translate ' between 

comes to be included in the group Samaria and Galilee,' i.e. along the 

of lepers in the story that follows, borders of S. and G. 
8ta /ATOI/ (corrected into Sia /zecrou 13. TrupptaOtv] In order to con- 

in A and most MSS.) is difficult. form to the law. Cf. Lev. xiii. 45, 

The poetical constr. of Sid c. accus. 46; Num. v. 2. 
of place is found here only in N.T., eTrtcrraTa] The Lucan substitute 

but is not unknown in later Gk. for 'Pa/ifySei or StSacr/caAe. Cf. v. 5, 

prose. Cf. P.B. s.v. Sid. Perhaps we viii. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49. 
should read /zroi/ alone with D and 14. eTrtSei'^are eavrovs rots itpev- 

important supporters. The meaning <nv\ Cf. Lev. xiii. 49 f. 


A great part of the sayings in this paragraph (vv. 23-24, 26-27, 34-37) 
are found also in Mt. xxiv., and may be presumed to come from Q. Matthew 
has combined a collection of apocalyptic sayings in Q with the apocalyptic 


discourse of Mk. xiii. Luke also reproduces the two sources, but keeps them 
distinct (see c. xxi.). This paragraph also contains material peculiar to this 
Gospel, particularly the answer to the questions of the Pharisees (vv. 20-21), 
the comparison of the revelation of the Son of Man to the overthrow of Sodom 
(vv. 28-30, 32), as well as a warning parallel to Mk. xiii. 15-16 (v. 31), and 
another saying (v. 33) which occurs in a different non-Marcan context in 

It seems, however, probable that Luke has to some extent edited the source. 
Verse 31 has probably been introduced from Mk. xiii. It requires a somewhat 
forced interpretation in its present context, and the same applies to the (Q) 
saying which follows. The doubts and problems to which the expectation of the 
Parousia gave rise in the second generation of believers v seem to be reflected 
in Luke's recasting of his material. The belief in the future coming of the Son 
of Man maintains its ground, but the evangelist shews that disappointments 
are to be expected (v. 22), and the questions When ? and Where ? cannot be 
directly answered. The expected return of Jesus should be prepared for by 
the renunciation of worldly goods. Only so may men win their life in the 
world to come. 

20 'E7rep&>T?7#efc9 Se VTTO rwv <&apt,craia)v Trore ep^erai rj 
j3aa-{,\eta rov Oeov arreKpiO'T] avrols KCLL elirev OVK ep%e- 

2 1 rai TI /3aa~L\eia rov Oeov fjiera TrapaTT/p^trew?, ovSe epov- 

'ISov &Se TI 'E/cer IBov jap rj (3ao-i\eia rov Oeov 

or ' Lo there ! ' cannot be rightly 
said of the true coming of the King- 
dom. Obviously it does not deny 
that ' Lo here ! ' or ' Lo there ! ' 
may be said by unauthorised pro- 
phets. There is, therefore, no con- 
tradiction of v. 23. 

ij f3. T, 0. ei/ros vfjitov ecrriV] This 
has been diversely interpreted both 
in ancient and, in modern times. 
The obvious translation of ei/ros 
iy/,wi/ is ' within you,' ' in your 
hearts.' (So, among the ancients, 
Greg. Nyss., who interprets of the 
image of God bestowed upon all 
men at birth, De Virg. xii.) Cf. Ps. 
xxxviii. (xxxix.) 4, cviii. (cix.) 22, cii. 
(ciii.) i ; Is. xvi. n. This rendering 
of CI/TOS (adopted by Wellh. among 

20. e7re/)am;0eis 81 /<rA.] The 
structure of the introductory sentence 
is typically Greek (see Bultmann, p. 
12). Cf. 2 Clem. xii. 2 eVepomy^ets 
yap O/UTOS o Kvpios VTTO rti/os, Trore 
rjet avrov ?} /i?acriA.6a, KT/\.. 

/zero, 7ra/)aT7/|0^creajs] The mean- 
ing is that it is useless to watch for 
signs which may shew when the 
Kingdom is about to come. The 
noun is found here only in N.T. 
and is rare elsewhere. The verb is 
found in the sense of ' to spy upon,' 
' to watch,' also ' to observe ' days 
as a religious ordinance (Gal. iv. 10), 
but not in the exact sense required 
here for 7rapa.T->jpr)(ri<s. 

50\J " JTOVTCT II3-I7I "-I 

21. ovoe epovcriv 16ov woe )/ Jii/cetJ 
The meaning is that ' Lo .here I ' 




7rp$ rovs 


others) yields a good meaning. An un- 
healthy preoccupation with questions 
as to the time and place of the coming 
of the end is countered by a doctrine 
of the Kingdom as a spiritual and 
inward reality of which it is not 
possible to say { Lo here ! ' and 
'Lo there!' 

It is objected to this interpretation 
of ^TOS upoi/ (i) that the words are 
then inappropriate as addressed to 
the Pharisees, and (2) that this con- 
ception of the Kingdom as an inward 
and invisible power in the hearts 
of men is without parallel in the 
Gospels. The dominant conception 
in the Gospels is that of an ap- 
proaching reign of God embodied 
in a world - embracing order, into 
which men may ' enter,' or from 
which they may be excluded. Or, 
again, it is a gift which God will 
bestow upon his elect (cf. xii. 32). 
It does not seem doubtful that the 
primary meaning of 'the Kingdom 
of God' in the teaching of Jesus 
is eschatological. The Kingdom is 
nowhere else used to express an 
inner condition of the soul. An inner 
condition of the soul may qualify for 
admission to the Kingdom, but it is 
not itself the Kingdom. These ob- 
jections may be met by translating 
IVTOS i)/xoji/ ' among you.' So syr.sin. 
IVTOS is used in this sense in Xen. 
Anab. i. 10. 3, Hdlen. ii. 3. 19. The 
sentence may then be interpreted 
either (as by J. Weiss) that the 
Kingdom which is hereafter to be 
manifested is already at work among 
you (cf. xi. 2o = Mt. xii. 28 upa 
c/>$a.(rev l<fi tyzas 1} /3. T. 9.), or the 
present eari may be treated as a 
prophetic present: 'The Kingdom, 
when it comes, will suddenly be in 
your midst.' The meaning is on 
this last view essentially the same 
as that of v. 24 infra. 

Either of these interpretations, 
based on the trans, of evros * among,' 
is more easily harmonised with the 
general usage of the Gospels than 
the interpretation ' within you,' and 
it must be recognised that it is pre- 
carious to use this text as a key to 
the meaning of the Kingdom of God 
in the mind of Jesus. But this does 
not settle the question as to how 
Luke understood what he wrote. 
' Within ' is certainly a possible 
and probably the most natural in- 
terpretation of fVros for a Greek. 
It is undoubtedly awkward on this 
interpretation that the saying is ad- 
dressed to the Pharisees, but this 
objection is not decisive, for the mean- 
ing might be ' in the hearts of men.' 
By the time that Luke's Gospel 
was written the term ' the Kingdom 
of God ' had lost its earlier definition, 
and could be used with the new 
context and associations which the 
teaching, death, and resurrection of 
Jesus had imparted to the term (cf. 
Ac. i. 3, xxviii. 31). The Spirit 
the first instalment of the inheritance 
was already bestowed, and St. Paul 
could write to the Romans (xiv. 17) 
ov y<ip ivTiv r] j3. r. 6. /?/)wcrts KOL 
7TO(7ts, ttAAa SiKaiocrvvr) KCU eipnvn 
/cat X a P"- * v Tn'ety/.aTi aytw. What- 
ever actual saying of Jesus may lie 
behind these words, it may be that 
Luke believed that Jesus set the 
spiritual presence of the Kingdom in!| 
men's hearts in antithesis to the ex- 1 
pectation of its appearance ' here ' 
or ' there.' But even if this is so, 
the eschatological conception is by 
no means superseded in the mind 
of the evangelist, or eliminated from 
his Gospel. Cf. Introd. p. Ixxii. 

2 2 . Further teaching on the coming 
of the Kingdom or the revelation of 
the Son of Man is addressed to the 


rjfjbepai ore eiriOvfjirjaere fjiiav rwv rj/Jiepwv rov 

<-!'" *>>/}' \> ,/ . n \ ) r. 

23 viov rov avupaiTTOv ibeiv Kai OVK oyecro'e. /cat epovcriv 

>TC\\ > >/ 'I x ''S 1 . ^ r ' '-\ /] S-M 

Joou e/cet 17 loov woe //,?; [aTreXc/T/re ya^oej 

24 axrirep yap rj darpaTrrj darpaTrrova-a eV T?}9 WTTO TO^ ovpa- 
vov et9 T^y VTT' ovpavov XayitTret, ovrcos carat, 6 vlbs rov 

25 dvOputirov. rrpwrov Be Bel avrov TroXXa rcaOelv /cat a?ro- 

26 SoKifjLaaOfjvai, diro T?}9 yeveas ravrr)?. /cat Ka6a)<; eyevero 
ev rat9 rjfAepais Nwe, OUTW9 earai KOL ev rat9 ^yLtepat9 ToO 

27 w/oO ToO dvOptorrov r\<iQiov, CTTLVOV, eydfjiovv, eya/ui^ovro, 
a^pi ^9 rji^epa^ eicfiA0eN Ntoe eic T^N KIBCOTO'N, /cat 

eyevero ev rat9 rjfJbepais ACOT- rjaOiov, emvov, rjyopa^ov, 
29 eiruiKovv, efyvrevov, <pKoBofj,ovv y Be ^epa e^rfkOev AO>T 
2toBofji(i)V, eBpeleN nyp K&I GeToN <NTT' OYP^NOY /cat a?r- 

24 add ev -rt\ T}fj.epa avrov codd 

23 aTreXOrjTe /wjSe om B 69-13 al pane arm 
aene omn : om BD 220 lat.vt sah 


T. viov r. ex.] i.e. 
one of the days of the new age after 
the Son of Man has been revealed. 
The verse is peculiar to Lk. and per- 
haps originates with him. kiriQvpzlv 
four times in the Gospel in passages 
peculiar to Lk. and once in Acts. 
Christ anticipates the longings which 

later use of -n-apovo-ia for the In- 
carnation, 'the first coming' (Ign. 
Philadelph. ix. 2), is not found in 
the N.T. writings. 

25. Peculiar to Luke. The former 
verse need not imply the identity 
of the speaker with the Son of Man, 
of. xii. 8 n. This verse, however, 

the evangelist and his readers knew implies the Christian doctrine of the 


23-24 = Mt. xxiv. 26-27, where 
the sayings are followed by the 
equivalent of v. 37 infra. The ap- 
pearance of the Son of Man will 
be sudden and visible to all, like a 
flash of lightning. There will there- 
fore be no need to look 'here' and 
' there.' 

24. ourcos eWat 6 wos T. a.] Mt. 
OUTOJS ecrrat f) Trapoixria T. viov T. a. 
Neither here nor elsewhere does Lk. 
use Trapovo-Lo. of the ' second coming.' 
Perhaps it was not a natural word 
for those who were learning to look 
back to a ' coming,' which had 
already taken place, as well as for- 
ward to a 'second coming.' The 

Son of Man. Jesus must first be 
crucified and rejected before he can 
appear as Son of Man from heaven. 

26-27 = Mt. xxiv. 37-39. As the 
flood overwhelmed all the unthinking 
and careless world, except Noah, 
who was prepared, so will the ap- 
pearance of the Son of Man over- 
whelm all who are unprepared for 
that event. 

28-32. Another historical counter- 
part to the future appearance. 
Peculiar to Luke. If it was con- 
tained in Q, its omission by Mt. is 
remarkable. Noah and Lot are 
grouped together in 2 Pet. ii. 5 f., 
as well as in Rabbinical texts. The 
history of Lot affords another warn- 


(t)\ecrv Trdvra^. Kara ra avra etrrai y r^/jLepa o u/09 TOT) 30 
dvOpcorrrov diroKaKv'jrreraL. ev eKeiwr) rrj rjuepa 09 ecrrai 3 1 
eirl rov 8fo//-aTO9 Kal ra (TKevr) avrov ev ry OIKLCL, p-r) 

~ ' apat avrd, Kal o ev a/ypco O/JLOLO)^ arj enicTpey^Tco 





Trj<$ yvvaLKos AWT. 09 iav 


aurov irepLiroLrja'aa'Bai a-TroXecret avriyv, 
09 &' av aTroXecrei faoyovijcrei avrijv. A-eyw vfjiiv, ravry 34 
rf) WKrl ecrovrat, Svo eirl K\Lvr]^ [//,m?], o e*9 Trapa- 

epo<$ d(j)e0^a-rai,' ecrovrai Bvo d\r)0ov(rai 35 
TO O.UTO, 1} ula Trapa^^O^creTaL rj Be erepa d(j)- 36 
Kal aTTOKpiOevres \e^ovcnv avru* TIov, Kvpue; 37 
o Be elirev avrois ' OTTOU TO trw/u-a, e'/cet al ot 

34 /-acts om B c 35 om vers S* al aliq 1 vg (cod D) post 35 add 

dvo [eirocTcu] cv [TW] aypia [o] eu 7rapaX?70^77(rerat A'ac o ere/so? a0e#?7<rerai DU 7 
al latt syrr arm (ex Matt xxiv. 40) 

ing especially appropriate to the elect 
Christians, for one of the company 
that had been saved from the over- 
throw of Sodom Lot's wife turned 
back and became a pillar of salt. 
In that day, therefore, let no 
man turn back to his house or his 

Verse 31 is parallel to Mk. xiii. 
15-16, where, however, the warning 
is not addressed, as here, to the 
disciples in general, but to the in- 
habitants of Palestine, when they 
see ' the abomination of desolation.' 
The parallel in Mk. disappears below 
at xxi. 21. The next verse prob- 
ably indicates that the sayings here 
are not to be understood literally, 
but of the renunciation of earthly 

33. He who seeks to provide for 
the needs of this life will forfeit his 
soul ; he who surrenders his life here 
will save it hereafter. There is no 
parallel in Mt. xxiv., and the placing 
of the saying here seems secondary. 

The saying is prob. taken from Q, 
cf. Mt. x. 39. 7repL7roi'qcra.crda.L and 
(Wyoi/eiV, both found here only in 
Gospels, both used in LXX to trans- 
late rpn, are equivalents for o-w^eti/, 
' to preserve alive ' (cf . ix. 24). ^wo- 
yovtiv is a literal translation of achi, 
the Aramaic word for o-idfav ( Wellh.). 
D gives fooyoveiv and syr.sin achi 
in both clauses. 

34-35 = Mt. xxiv. 40-41. But 
in Mt. we have 'two in a field,' 
instead of ' two in a bed.' D lat.vt 
and later texts have supplied the 
' two in a field ' here from Mt. 

37. This saying in Mt. follows 
the equivalent of vv. 23-24 supra. 
It has perhaps been transposed by 
Lk. to make a conclusion to the 
paragraph, and the question also 
has perhaps been supplied by him. 
The judgement will operate wherever 
it is called for. It will, therefore, 
be neither ' here ' nor ' there.' Thus 
the section ends on the same note 
with which it started. 


Two PARABLES ON PRAYER (xviii. 1-14) 

The two parables which follow, though very different in tone and character, 
are both concerned with prayer, and are no doubt placed together for that 
reason. To each the evangelist has prefixed a slight introduction to explain 
the purport of the parable. For a similar preface to a parable cf. xix. II 
infra. In the case of the former parable, the introduction does not entirely 
tally with the content of the parable, which is not concerned, as the introduc- 
tion suggests, with prayer in general, but with the specific prayer that God 
will speedily avenge his elect. It is possible that the evangelist in reproducing 
his source was unwilling to emphasise a moral which might be regarded as 
vindictive in temper. It is held, however, by Jiilicher (followed by Bultmann, 
p. 1 08) that the parable was not originally concerned with the specific moral 
which is drawn from it in vv. 6-7, but merely enforced the need for persistence 
in prayer like the very similar parable in xi. 5 f. (cf. Jiilicher's views on the 
parable of the Unjust Steward, supra c. xvi.). The similarity in structure and 
idea between xi. 5 f. and this parable points to some close connexion. But 
the relation is not easy to determine. The idea of e/fSuc^o-is is so closely 
interwoven in the texture of this story that if the eschatological element were 
eliminated from the interpretation, the parable would lose its main force. 
Wellhausen argues that the idea that God rather than the Messiah acts 
as Judge is Jewish, and that therefore the parable must be of early date ; 
the parable expresses the hopes of the early Christian community for vindi- 
cation against their Jewish persecutors. Wellhausen holds the parallel parable 
(xi. 5 f.) to be secondary. 

Close parallels may be noted in wording and thought between this parable 
and Ecclus. xxxv. 15 f. There is perhaps direct literary influence. 

The interpretation of the parable is complete with 8a. 8b appears to be 
an independent reflection which has been added later. 

The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is another and the last 
of the Lucan illustrative stories (cf. x. 25 Introd.). The simple and skilful 
portraiture of the two men resembles the art of the parables of the Good 
Samaritan and of the Prodigal Son. 

XVIII. I "EXe^ez/ Be Trapaf3o\r)V avrols 777)0? TO Seiv iravrore 

2 Trpoa-ev^ecrdaL avrovs /ecu fir) evKaKelv, Aeycoz/ KpLrrjs rt? 

rjv ev .Tivi TroAet rov 6eov yw] (frofiovfjLevos KCLL av6 pawrov 

I. avrpts] i.e. the disciples, cf. 2. ruv Beov fj.rj . . . pr) evrpeTro- 

xvii. 22, . /ACVOS] Forthe double characterisation 


/&}) evTpeTrofjievos. X^P a ^ ^ v ^ v T V ^oXet efceuvrj ical 3 
tfPX eTO "^P ^ avTov \eyovara 'E/eSt/c^o'oy yue diro TOV dv- 
TiBifcov yu,of. KCU ovic ij@e~\,ev eirl %povov, peTa Tavra Be 4 
elirev ev eavTfo Et KOL TOV deois ov <J3o(3ov/JLai, ovBe av- 
COTTOV evTp&Tco^ai, Bid ye TO irapex GLV A 604 KOTTOV Trjv 5 
TavTfjv efcBiKijcra) avTijv, r (va fj,rj el<? TeA-O9 p^ofJLevrj 

fjie. EtTre^ Be 6 tcvpLos AtcovcreiTe TI 6 fcpiTrjs 6 

-\' rp.\/i\ \ ' \p./ ._ 

Ae<yef o oe aeo? of //<?) TTOir)crr) T-TJV CKOiK'rja'iv J 

TWV eK\eKTMV avTov T&V BOWVTQJV avT(o vu,epa<} /col VVKTOS, 

I L * * I * 

KOI fjLa/cpodvfjLel evr avTol? ; \eya) V/JLLV OTL Troir]o~ei TTJV 8 
e/cBiKijcriv avT&v ev Ta^et,. ifK^v o vios TOV dvOpanrov 
eXOotiv apa evp-rjo'ei Trjv TTLO'TLV eirl T?/9 7^79; 

cf. Dion. Hal. x. 10. 7 oi're Odov some ( e.g. Bengel, Plumnaer, J.Weiss) 

as a pendant to POUVTWV : the elect 


cry to God, and God patiently hears 

4. enrei/ Iv eaimp] The soliloquy their cry. But this obscures the 
is very frequent in the parables point that, for the time being, God 
peculiar to Lk. Cf. xii. 17, xv. 17, does not intervene, though he will 
xvi. 3. But also xii. 45=Mt. xxiv. shortly do so. It seems better, 
48. therefore, with Wellh., to translate 

el Kftl . . . ov . . . Sta ye TO . . .] ' does God restrain his anger ? ' i.e. 

Cf. xi. 8. is God patient at the misdoings of 

5. fp^ofj-evrj tiTTOj/riu^] vTrcoTrta^etv those who ill-treat the elect ? eV 

properly ' to strike someone in the avTois then means ' in the case of 

face,' ' to give a black eye ' ; also the elect,' and is not governed by 

in a more extended sense but still fj.aKpoOvfj.6L as Mt. xviii. 26, 29 ; 

connoting physical violence, I Cor. Ja. v. 7. But the change of tense 

ix. 27, ' I handle my body roughly,' after Trooycn/ is awkward; likewise 

and Aristoph. Pax 541 of cities the conjunction of two questions of 

devastated by war. To interpret of which the former expects the answer 
physical assault here would give good 
sense and make an effective contrast 

to Trape^tv KOTTOV above. So Wellh., translation, or both at once," Wellh. 

Klostermann. But the present tenses Jiilicher suspects a gloss from Ecclus. 
are against this. We should expect 
eX9ovo~a UTTcoTrtao"^. It is better to 

'yes,' and the latter the answer 
' no.' " Bad Greek, perhaps bad 

XXXV. 22. 

8. 7r/V>)i> . . . ?rt T>}<? y/ys] This 
assume a metaph. use of the word : verse strikes a different note from 
' lest her visits end in causing me the urgency of the preceding parable. 

grave trouble.' 

We revert to the theme of the 

6. 6 ;cptTi)s TT/S a6\/aus] Cf. TOV paragraph which precedes the parable 
OLKOVO/JLOV Trjs doiKtas, xvi. 8 and n. the coming of the Son of Man 

7. i<al< ITT' avrois ;] and the anxious question is pro- 
The meaning and grammar are alike pounded, What is the state which 
obscure. The clause is taken by the Son of Man will find when he 


9 EiTrez/ Be teal irpos nvas row? ireiroiOoTa^ e<f> eavroi? 

OTI elcrlv Si/caioi KOI e%ov6evovvTa<$ TOV<? \OITTOVS rrjv Trapa- 

IO (3o\r)V Tavrrjv. "KvOpayiroi Bvo avspycrav et? TO icpov 

I I Trpocrev^aaOai, et? <&apicraio$ KOL 6 ere/>o? reXoof?;?. o 

<&apiaalo<s crraOel^ ravra Trpbs eavrov Trpoariv^ero 'O 

0eos, ev^apiffrw <TOL on OVK elfu wcrrrep ol \OLTTOL rwv 

av6pa>Trwv, apirayes, aSiKoi, poi^oi, 77 teal o>9 ovro? o re- 

12 \tavw vrjo-revw St? rov a-afifidrov, uTroBeKarevw iravra 

1 3 6Va KTw/jiai. 6 Se reXco^T/? p,a,Kpo@ev ecrro)? OVK rj6e\ev 

ovSe TOVS o(j)9a\/^ov<; eTrapau et? TO^ ovpavov, aXA,' ervirre 

TO crTrjOos eavrov \eycov 'O 6eo<s, [\da-0yTi, poi T&> a/map- 

14 T(O\M. \eyay vfjblv, /care/St) ovro? SeSiKaitofAevos et? TOV 

IO o erepos] ets D II return, -rrpos eavTov fc$ c BL I etc : Ka.0 favrov ravra 

D syr.vt arm : rauro, ft* lat.vt ; vrpos favrov ravra A a al pier 5" 

comes ? rrjv Tri'cmv, ' the faith,' i.e. 
the faith of the Christian Church. 
The saying, perhaps, echoes the 
anxiety of a Church leader distressed 
at the inroads of strange teachings. 

The thanksgiving is 
not feigned. The Pharisee is truly 
thankful that he has fulfilled what 
God's law demands. 

12. Not only does the Pharisee 

9. TT/aos rivas] The Pharisees are fulfil the requirements of the law, 

meant, but not named, since a 
Pharisee is a character in the par- 
able. TT/JOS may mean that these 
were the persons addressed (as e.g. 
xvii. i and often), or, more probably, 
it should be translated ' with regard 
to ' or ' against.' 6V i, ' that,' not 
(with Grotius) ' because.' 

10. ai/e/:fyo-ai/] The two went up 
from the city to the temple mount. 

Trpocrfv^aa-Oai] Perhaps at one of 
the stated hours of prayer. Cf. i. 10 ; 
Ac. iii. I. 

11. ora^ets] 'took up his posi- 
tion.' Contrast ecrrws v. 13. TT/JOS 
eavrov, whether placed before or 
after ravra, must be taken with 
Trpoarrjv^eTo : ' he prayed with him- 
self.' It would be more in keeping 
with custom and with the tenor of 
the parable if he prayed aloud. The 
reading of D, supported by syr.vt, 
yields a better sense : ' took up his 
position by himself and prayed thus.' 

but he does more than the law asks. 

vrjarrevia Si's] Self-imposed fasts 
were observed by pious Jews on 
Mondays and Thursdays (see Schiirer, 
" P- 573)' Christians took over 
the practice, but changed the days 
to Wednesdays and Fridays (Didache 
viii. i). 

irdvra ocra Krw/zat] ' all that I 
receive ' : i.e. he pays a tithe on all 
his income not on all that he pos- 
sesses. Travra is emphatic. The law 
prescribed the payment of tithes on 
produce (Num. xviii. 21 ; Deut. xiv. 
22 f.). Pharisaic zeal extended 
this to garden herbs, Mt. xxiii. 23, 
with Klostermann ad loc. 

13. orSe] To be taken with the 
whole clause.: 'would not even look 
up to heaven.' 

iX.d(r@r)ri UOL raJ a/xa/moAoTj De 
nemine alio homine cogitat, Bengel. 

14. SeSiKcutu/zei/os] i.e. accepted 
with God. The doctrine of the 

olfcov avrov 'Trap' e/ceivov on iras o vty&v eavrov rairei- 

6 Be raireivwv eavrov 

parables of c. xv. is reasserted : y tVe- Trcts o v\j/u>v /crA.] This saying has 
rat X a P"' tvuTriov TOJV ayyeXuv rov already been given above, xiv. n. 
Oeov ITTI kvl afj.apT(aXip fAzravoovvTi. Cf. Mt. xxiii. 12. 

THE PASSION FORETOLD (xviii. 15-34) 

Luke now resumes the thread of the Marcan narrative which he dropped 
at ix. 50, and with certain additions, omissions, and amplifications he continues 
to follow it to the end. The adjustment to the other material is not obtrusive. 
In the Gospel as it stands there is no clear break between the last section and 
the Marcan sections which follow now. We are still on the road to Jerusalem. 

Luke has dropped Mk. x. 1-12 (on Divorce). Probably he considered that 
xvi. 1 8 already sufficiently gave Christ's teaching on this subject. The 
blessing of the infants, the question of the rich man, with the sayings on the 
dangers of wealth and the rewards of renunciation, and the last prophecy of the 
Passion, are in the same order as in Mark and reproduce the Marcan text with 
but slight changes. 

Tlpo(re(f)pov Be avr& Kal ra j3pe(f)r) iva avrwv arrr^rai' 15 
IBovres Be ol jJLaOrjral errerLpwv avrols. o Be I^croO? Trpoa- 1 6 
Ka\ecraro \avra\ \ejti)V "A<ere ra Tra&la ep^ea-Oai vryao? 
fjue Kal pri K(a\veTe avrd, T&V jap TOLOVTWV ea-rlv fj ftacri- 
\eia rov Oeov. apyv Xey&> VJMV, 05 av ^ Be^ijrai, rrjv I/ 
/3aa-i\iav TOV Oeov eo? iraiBiov, ov jurj el(re\dr) et? avrrjv. 

Kat eTrrjpcoTijaev r*? avrov ap^cov \e<ywv AtSacr/caXe 1 8 

1 6 Tr/aoo-e/caXecraro aura] om aura B 

i5-iy = Mk. x. 13-16; Mt. xix. ii. 12-16) for Mk. TraiSia. fiptyr) is 

13-15. Luke omits to say that less appropriate, as some conscious 

Jesus was vexed with the disciples, capacity in the children seems needed 

and he omits to say that he embraced to give point to the saying concern- 

the children. For the latter omis- ing receiving the Kingdom of God as 

sion (also om. Mt.) cf. ix. 48 supra = a little child. 

Mk. ix. 36. There is a reluctance 17. tus TratStov] i.e. with the dis- 

to ascribe strong emotion to Jesus. position of a child. 
It is prob. due to the same motive 18-23 =Mk.x. 17 f . ; Mt. xix. i6f. 
that D lat.vt (codd.) syr.vt sub- 18. apx^i'] Not in Mk. An in- 

stitute Trpoo-KaAeora^ievos for iv- ference from the questioner's great 


in Mk. x. 16. " > wealth. Mt. makes the man ' a 
15. ra Ppe<j>r]] ' their infants ' (cf. youth,' and therefore drops IK 




elirev Se 
dyaObs el 


Tavra Trdvra 
elrrev avr) 

19 dja0e, TL Troirjcra? 

OVTW o It)(TOv<} Tt yu-e Ae<yet9 dyaOov ; 

20 /j,rj el? [o] 0eo9. T9 ei>To\ds 
4>ONeVc^c, Mto KA 

21 TTyrep& coy KAI THN MHTG'PA. o Se ei7rez> 

22 e<j)v\aj;a GK i>eoT/;T09. d/covcra? Se o ' 
v Ert / crofc \eiirei' Trdvra oaa e 

TTTCo^ot?, /cal e^et? drjcravpbv ev [rot?] ovpavols, KOL Sevpo 

23 d/cdXovOeL fjiOL. o Se dtcoixra^ ravTa TrepiKviros 

24 fy yap 7r\ovcrLOs <r(j)oSpa. I8a)v Be avrov [o] 
etTrev Hoi)? SV<TKO\Q)<; ol ra %pr][jLara e^o^re? et? 

25 ftacrikeiav rov deov elcnropGvovraL' evKOTrwrepov yap e<TTt,v 

Bid TrAaTOS /3e\6vr)<; ela-6\6eiv r) ir\ovcriov et? rrjv 


19 ets o 0eos] oni o 

22 ou/aaz/ots] praem rots BD 

24 o Irjo-ovs] om o B 

in the man's reply to 
Jesus. Luke omits the detail of 
the Marcan setting that the man 
came running and kneeling to Jesus 
as he was setting out on the road. 
He also omits Mk.'s statement that 
Jesus loved the man. 

T6 TrotTyo-as . . . /cA^povo/A^crco ;] 
More idiomatic than Mk. T'I Trot^cro) 
tva . . . ; 

19. Unlike Mt. Lk. does not 
stumble at the words of Jesus, TL 
fj.e Aeyeis dyaOov ; ovSels aya#os. 

22. Lk. somewhat strengthens the 
form of the renunciation which is 
required by adding Trai/ra. StaSos] 
* distribute.' An improvement on 
Sos (Mk.). 

24-26. A greatly weakened version 
of Mk. x. 23-27. In Mk. the rich 
man goes away (drrrj^Oev v. 22 ; om. 
Lk. v. 23), whereupon Jesus looks 
round on his disciples and addresses 
them. Contrast ISwv Se avrov o 3 J. 
etTrei' v. 24. Verses 24, 25 compress 
into one two distinct speeches of 
Mk., of which the latter is a 
heightened repetition of the former. 
The increasing astonishment of the 

disciples so graphically portrayed 
in Mk. disappears, and the exclama- 
tion i<al r/s Sv^arat trwOfyai ; is 
transferred from the disciples to 
the Jewish audience in the back- 
ground (etrrai/ Se ot aKoixrai/Tes, v. 
26). In Mk. Jesus again ' looks on ' 
the disciples before he utters the 
final words, and these themselves 
are far more vigorously rendered in 
Mk. than in Lk. (v. 27). 

24. The Rabbinic attitude towards 
wealth is discussed by Abrahams, 
Studies, i. pp. 113 f. The Rabbis 
recognised that poverty was an evil. 
" There is [in Rabbinic teaching] no 
cult of poverty, neither is there a 
cult of wealth. Both are conditions 
of good and ill rather than good and 
ill themselves. Not the possession 
of wealth but too absolute a devo- 
tion to its acquisition and too ready 
a surrender to its temptations were 
feared." It is natural that the more 
radical attitude of this saying should 
cause astonishment in a Jewish 

25. T/3>//xaros f3eX.6vr)s] 'the eye 
of a needle,' for rpiyzaAcas /ja</>t'Sos 


fBaffiKeiav rov Qeov elcreXOelv. eiTrav Be ot aKovcravres 26 
Kal Tt9 Bvvarai <rwQt)vai; 6 Be elvrev Ta dBvvara rrapa 27 
dvOpcoTTOLS Bvvara rrapa TO> 6eo> eanv. EtTrez/ 28 

Be 6 TIerpos 'I5oy 97/^6^9 dtyevres ra iBia rj/coXovOtfcrajjiev 
GQI. o Be elrrev avrols. 'Ayu,^ Xe^w V^JLLV on ovBels eanv 29 
09 d(j>f}K6V oliciav r) <yvvalica rj dBe\(f)ovs rj yovels TJ reicva 
e'iveicev rr}9 ftacrikeias rov Oeov, 09 ov^l fj,rj \d^y irdXKa- 30 
TrXacrlova ev TCO Kaipw TOUTCO KOL ev rw al&vi TO> 

Tlapa\a/3a)v Be roi/9 B(*)Be/ca elirev 7r/oo9 avrovs 'IBov 3 1 
dvaftaivopev eh ^\epovcra\r)fj, } KCLI re\ea-0ijcrerat, Truvra ra 
Sia rwv rrpo^rjrwv TO> VLM rov 

30 Xa/STj BD al : airoXa/S?? KAL al pier TroAXaTrXacrioya] CTrraTrXao'toj'a D 

lat.vt syr.hl-mg Diat Cypr : eKaTovrairXafftova. syr.vt 

Cf. Phryn. Ixxii. /3eA.ov?7 Kat TrAacrtova. But we should probably 

rj'S ap^ata, >} 8e /ja^>ts TI read eTTTaTrAacrtovo. with D lat.vt. 

oi5/< cii/ rts yvo'i-i). In truth Both Mt. and Lk. omit from Mk. 

/jail's is the older word which had the repetition of the goods which 

been replaced by f3eX.6vr) in Attic, the disciple may have renounced. 

See Rutherford ad loc. Lk. omits the saying with which the 

28 f. As Luke tells the story, section ends in Mk. : ' Many that 

ths disciples in the person of Peter are first shall be last, and the last 

here first intervene. They have first.' He has already given it at 

renounced all : what then is to be xiii. 30 in what he probably con- 

their reward? The answer is that sidered to be a more appropriate 

they will indeed be rewarded both setting. 

in this age and in the age to come. 31-34' The third and last of the 

It is remarkable that Lk. has omitted predictions of the Passion which Lk. 

the words //-era Swoy/zwi/ which in has taken over from Mk. But in 

Mk. qualify the reward in this Lk. the two former (ix. 22, 43- 

present world. Mt. leaves the 45) are widely separated from the 

promise of reward general without last owing to the interpolations of 

referring either to this world or the the central section. Another brief 

world to come, and appends the prophecy of the Passion has been 

parable of the labourers in the vine- introduced above at xvii. 25, The 

yard to interpret the nature of the preceding verse in Mk. (x. 32 i/crav Se 

reward. ev rfj 6Sw ttva/^ouvovres ets 'lepo- 

29. >} ywat/ca] Lk. alone adds yoAv/xa, Kat fy irpodyuv ai'Toi>s 6 
this. Cf. xiv. 26 supra. He omits J l>/croTJS, /cat e^a/x/^owTO, 01 8e CXKO- 
' sisters,' gives ' parents ' for ' mother Acn;#oiWes c(/Jo/3oiWo) is omitted. 
or father,' and omits ' lands.' The former part seemed superfluous 

30. TTO A AaTrAao- to i/a] In agreement (see v. 31 'ISov oVa/JatVo/zei' ei's 
with Mt. against Mk. e/caTovra- 3 Ie/joi;craArj/x), and a partial equiva- 



32 TrapaBoO^aerai, jap rot? eOvecnv KOI 

33 v]3pio'0ijo'Tat fcal e/jLTTTVcrdrjcreTai, KCLI /jLacrTiycaa'avTes 7ro- 

KTeVOVCTLV aVTOV, KCLI Tfl r)fJL6pa TT) TplTT) avaCTTrjcreTat,. 

34 Kal avTol ovSev TOVTG&V crvvfjicav, KCLI f)v TO pfjfjLa TOVTO 


Man shall be given up to the chief 
priests and to the scribes, and they 
shall condemn him to death and 
give him up to the Gentiles," and 
this corresponds to the Marcan 
Passion narrative, where sentence 
of death is passed by the High 
Priest. In Lk. the Sanhedrin do 
not condemn Jesus to death, but 
hand him over to Pilate. The 
abbreviation and modification of 
Mark here is probably therefore 
made in view of what is to follow. 
d v/3pL<r0rj(reTai\ Add. Luc. 

lent for the latter is to appear infra 
v. 28. TheprophecyinLk. isamplified 
by a characteristic reference to the 
scriptures in which the death of 
the Messiah had been foretold. This 
prepares the way for the interpreta- 
tion of the scriptures which the 
Risen Christ gives to his disciples, 
xxiv. 27, 45 f. Luke adds to the 
prophecy the statement that the 
disciples did not at this time under- 
stand what was said. 

32. irapaSoOrjcreTai yap TOIS Wve.- 
Mk. gives "And the Son of 

THE PUBLICAN THE HOST OF JESUS (xviii. 35-xix. 10) 

Luke has omitted at this point the Marcan narrative of the request of the 
sons of Zebedee (Mk. x. 35-45). A parallel version of some of the sayings of 
Jesus connected with that incident in Mark is included in the narrative 'of the 
Last Supper (xxii. 24 f.), and with Mk. x. 38 compare Lk. xii. 50. Luke's 
general tendency to avoid phrases and incidents which might appear to reflect 
upon the character of the Apostles would incline him to pass over the section. 

Then follows the next Marcan paragraph : the healing of the blind man. 
The modifications are slight except that in Mark Jesus heals the blind man 
as he leaves Jericho, whereas in Luke the healing takes place as Jesus draws 
near to the city. The evangelist has little concern for accuracy or fidelity to 
his source in a detail of this kind, if it suits the purpose of his general pre- 
sentation to make a change. His motive here was probably that of providing 
an introduction to the story of Zacchaeus which he has worked into the 
Marcan narrative at this point. The crowd which attends Jesus as he enters 
the city (v. 36, cf. Mk. x. 46) leads up to the story of the little chief publican, 
Zacchaeus, who climbs a tree in order to see Jesus as he enters, and is chosen 
by Jesus to be his host. 

The story of Zacchaeus is another of a group of incidents peculiar to Luke 
which appear to be later and secondary counterparts to stories in Mark. The 


hospitality of Zacchaeus is to the hospitality of Levi what the healing of the 
ten lepers is to the healing of the leper of Mark i. 40 f . See Introd. p. Ixviii. 
The latter part of the scene is very vaguely filled in. It is not easy to see 
when or where Zacchaeus ' stood and said to the Lord, Behold the half of my 
goods,' etc., nor when, where, and in whose presence the Lord pronounced 
the blessing on his host. The heart of the story is to be sought in the last 
two verses. Zacchaeus, though an outcast in public estimation, is yet a care 
to the Son of Man and a true son of Abraham. Loisy suggests that in the 
collocation of the two stories, the healing of the blind man and Zacchaeus, the 
evangelist is moved by a conscious symbolism : the blind man typifies Judaeo- 
Christians ('Jesus, thou Son of David,' v. 38) and Zacchaeus Gentile Christians. 
The question whether or not Zacchaeus was a son of Abraham by birth is, 
Loisy holds, irrelevant. The point of the saying of Jesus is that Zacchaeus 
was a spiritual son of Abraham (cf. Gal. iii. 9, 29 ; Rom. iv. u f.) and thus 
typifies the Gentile believer who is heir to the promise made to Abraham. 
This, however, appears to attribute to the evangelist a more definite symbolism 
than the narratives warrant. On the other hand Wellhausen is surely too 
literal when he interprets v. 9 to imply that Jesus would not have entered the 
house of a heathen. From the point of view of the narrative the heathen are 
not at all in question. The thought is simply that Zacchaeus, though an 
outcast to the murmurers, is yet one of God's people. It was easy to apply 
the thought to the position of Gentiles in the eyes of Jews and Judaisers, but 
the application is not made in the text. 

'E^ez/ero Be ev r&> eyyu^eiv aurbv et? 'lepe^ou rv<j6Xo? 3 5 
TA? QK,aQi)To irapa TTJV o$ov eTraiT&v. ctKoixra^ Be o%\ov 36 
Sia7ropevojjLevov InrvvQaveTo TI eit] rovro- a7rri^eL\av Be 37 
avrw OTL 'IT/CTOI)? o Na^w^ato? irapep^erai. KOL efBbrjcrev 38 
\erywv 'Irjcrov vie Aafet'S, \erj<rbv fie. KOI oi Trpodyovres 39 
7reTifjL(t)i> aura 'ivd aiy)j(rr)' auro? Be 7roX/Vw jjiaXXov 
expa^ev T/e AauetS, e\erjcroi> yu,e. crra^et? Be I^croO? 40 

35. lyevero Se eV TW KrA.] Lucan The blind man hails Jesus as the 
constr., cf. i. 8 n. Luke omits the Davidic Messiah. In Lk. as in Mk. 
name of the blind man : Ba/m/xcuos. this is the first and only occasion 

36. cTrvvOdvero . . . uTr^yyeiAai/ on which Jesus is thus directly 
Se ai'iTti) on] The blind man's ques- addressed. The address prepares for 
tion is supplied by Luke out of Mk. the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, 
d/voi)(ras on. en/] Optat. in in- cf. v. 38 infra o jSacrtAei'?. 

direct question Lucan. 40. Luke omits as superfluous 

38. lijcrov vie AcuieiS] From Mk. graphic touches from Mk. : that 


Ke\Vo~ev avrov d-^dtjvat rrpos avrov. eyyio~avros Be 
4 1 avrov eTrrjpcorrjcrev avrov Tt o~ot 0e\et$ 











42 eirrev 

43 avrw Avafihetyov "n starts o~ov o~eo-a)Kev ere. 

1 *-' L ' t * 

7rapa%prjua dveftXeifrev, Kal rjKoKovOei avrw Bo^dfav rov 
Oeov. Kal 7ra9 o Xao9 lBa)i> eBcoKev alvov rc3 Oew. 
Kat to~6\0a)v Bttjp^ero rrjv 'lepet^co. Kal IBov 





3 Kai avros Tr\ovo~ios' Kal e^rjreu IBetv rov 'lycrovv rt9 eartv, 
Kal OVK rjBvvaro avro rov o^Xov ort rfj rj\tKLa fj,tKpo<$ ?)V. 

4 Kal TrpoSpafjicov et9 TO ^7rpoo~0v dveftr) eVl crvKo/jtopeav 

5 Iva tSrj avrov, on eKetvrjs 'tjfjteX\ev Btep^eaOat. Kal &>9 
r)\6ev 7rl rov roTrov, dvafiXetyas [o] 'lyo-ovs elirev Trpbs 
avrov Za/cvate, cr7refcra9 Kard/3ijdi, o~r)/j,pov yap ev rw 

6 oiK(i) o~ov Bet /JLC fjtetvat. Kal ffirevara^ Kare/Br], Kal vir- 

7 eBe^aro avrov %aipa)v. Kal IBovres Trdvres 

5 o ITJCTOUS] om o B 

word is brought to the blind man 
that Jesus calls him ; that the man 
leaped up and threw off his cloak 
to come to Jesus. 

41. KvpLe] Mk. 'PafifiovvtL As 
usual, Lk. avoids foreign words. 

4^. wat riKoXovOti airruTl To swell 

i *J I t J 

the multitude who were to hail the 
entrance of the Messiah into the 
Holy City. Luke characteristically 
adds that the man and all the people 
gave praise to God. 

1. eiVe/V^wv Sirypxero] Wellh. finds 
a contradiction here with the story 
which follows, in which it is implied 
that Jesus is still without the city. 
Trees would not grow in the narrow 
streets of an oriental city. 

2. Za/c^atos] For the name ""3T cf. 
Ezr. ii. 9; Neh. vii. 14; Jos. Vit. 
46 ^ttK^atos v.l. Za/c^atos. It is 
an abbreviation of Zachariah. By 
etymology the name may mean 
' pure,' but this is not, as has been 
suggested, significant. Lk. nowhere 

uses names with a symbolic purpose. 
Ace. to Clem. Al. Strom, iv. 6. 35, 
Zacchaeus was identified by some 
with Matthias. For the tradition 
in the Clementines that he became 
Bishop of Caesarea see Zahn ad loc. 

ap^treAwi/?ys] The word is not 
attested elsewhere. Jericho would 
naturally be an important customs 
station from its position at the 
passage of the Jordan from Judaea 
to the lands E. of Jordan. 

3. /cat e^/yrei tSeti/j We need not 
suppose that he is yet moved by 
penitence for his exactions. Fama 
notum vullu noscere cupiebat, Grotius. 

4. e/cetVr/s, sc. oSov. Cf. v. ig 
TroLas with note. 

5. Za/c^ate] How Jesus knew the 
publican's name is not said. 

7. Sieyoyyvfov] The murmuring 
appears .to take place outside the 
house after Jesus has entered with 
Zacchaeus : I'TreSe^aTo avrov (v. 6), 
etcn//X#ei/ (v. 7). But the words of 




KOL ei rtvo? rt 

Se Za^a?o? elirev Trpo? rov Kvpuov 'I Sou ra 
TWV VTrap^ovrayv, tcvpie, [TO??] Trrw^ofc SuSwfjLi, 

-VKofydvTrja-a aTroSiScofii, Terpa7r\ovv. elirev 9 
avrov [o] 'I^crofo ort ZijjAepov (rcoTrjpia rq> O'LKW 
rovro) eyevero, KaOon Kal avros vlos 'A./3pad/j, [ecrrtz/]' r)\0ev IO 
yap o i/to? rot) dv0pa>7rov ZHTHCAI al (TOHrai, r6 
8 rots om B 248 

9 o Iijcrous] om o B 

eerrti/ om 

Jesus in v. g are as much a reply 
to the murmurers as to Zaccbaeus. 
Note the 3rd pers. used in speaking 
of Zacchaeus : Kadort Kal avros. 
The sequence is not mended if with 
Bultmann (p. 17) we regard the 
speech of Zacchaeus (v 8) as an 
interpolation by the evangelist into 
his source. This is one of many 
scenes in the Gospel where the 
detail, if pressed, is found to be 
lacking in verisimilitude. 

8. TTTOJ^OIS St'Scojou] The present 
tense describes here a present resolve, 

not, as e.g. in xviii. 12, a present 
habit. To suppose that Z. is jus- 
tifying himself is to miss the spirit 
of the story. He declares that half 
of his fortune he makes over to the 
poor, and out of the remainder he 
restores fourfold to any he has 
wronged. Ex. xxii. i requires four 
sheep to be restored for one stolen. 
Fourfold restitution for furtum mani- 
festum is found in Roman law. See 
Wettst. The meaning here is simply 
that Z. of his own will makes ample 


The parable of the Pounds finds a close parallel in the parable of the 
Talents which Matthew gives (c. xxv.) between the parable of the Ten Virgins 
and the description of the Last Judgement with which he closes his narrative 
of the teaching and preaching of Jesus. The verbal resemblances between 
the Matthaean and the Lucan parables, especially towards the close, make it 
almost certain that there is literary relationship. And in spite of striking 
differences the story in each Gospel is fundamentally the same : a man leaves 
money in the hands of his servants and on his return he makes a reckoning 
with them. Those who have made good use of what was entrusted to them 
are entrusted with more power and responsibility, while the servant who has 
merely preserved his trust is reprimanded and made to forfeit his money to 
the most successful of his fellow-servants. The parable itself is not found in 
Mark, but the image of the man going into a far country and entrusting duties 
and authority to his servants during his absence is found in Mk. xiii. 34 f . It 
is worthy of note that in Mark, as above xii. 42 = Mt. xxiv. 45 f ., the servants 
are in charge of a household or an estate, not, as here, of capital to be invested. 


The chief difference between the Lucan form of the parable and that in 
Matthew is that in Luke the man who goes away is a nobleman who goes to 
receive a kingdom, and that the disloyal behaviour of the citizens and their 
subsequent punishment by the returned king blend somewhat incongruously 
with the story of the man's dealings with his servants. This theme is 
clearly secondary. Verses 12, 14, i$a,, 27 may be excised without affecting 
the parable of the Pounds. It is to be noted that the parable of the Marriage 
Feast in Matthew has been similarly amplified (xxii. 7). Harnack holds that 
a single parable originally independent has been differently attached in the 
two Gospels. The additional matter, however, in each case is not so much 
a parable as an allegorical expansion designed to relate and interpret the 
rejection of Jesus by the Jews and the downfall of Jerusalem. The spirit of 
the Lucan addition is the spirit of the conclusion of the parable of the Unjust 
Judge (xviii. I f .). Perhaps Luke took both parables from the same source. 

The setting of the parable in Luke determines the interpretation which 
the evangelist sets upon it. Jesus is drawing near to Jerusalem surrounded 
by an enthusiastic crowd, who expect, as the Apostles expected after the 
Resurrection (Acts i.), and as many of the evangelist's own contemporaries 
were still expecting, that " the kingdom of God would immediately appear." 
In the parable Jesus teaches that he must first go away in order to receive 
the kingdom, and an interval must elapse before he returns. That interval 
is, for his disciples, a time of testing and, according to the quality of their 
service during that interval, will be their status in the kingdom when the 
Lord comes back. When the return takes place it will involve not only the 
reward of the faithful, but also the punishment of the disloyal citizens, i.e. 
the Jews. 

Jiilicher argues that the idea of the Parousia which governs the meaning 
of the parable as it now stands both in Matthew and Luke has been super- 
imposed upon an older story which was, in the true sense of the word, a 
parable, i.e. it was a story from ordinary life, which afforded an analogy with 
some aspect of God's dealings with men in this case God's judgement upon 
men's lives. The ' allegorical ' element, unmistakable in the story as it stands, 
is secondary. Originally the man who went on a journey was not Christ, 
but a neutral character sketched from life. Jiilicher argues that if the man 
had originally been intended for Christ, he would not have been described 
in the parable as " an austere man, reaping where he had not sown," etc. 
Jiilicher's general theory as to the possible literary history of the parable 
may be right, but to his chief argument, summarised above, Wellhausen well 


replies that the Lord is a harsh taskmaster to the idle servant alone, and that 
because the idle servant has not his Lord's business in his heart. Those who 
make their lord's interest their own find that their duty becomes a joyful 

Artistically, and in a broad sense historically, the setting in Luke is good, 
but it does not carry conviction from the point of view of historical realism. 
The audience in Jericho could not have been expected to discover the im- 
plications of the parable as they are presented in the evangelist's introduction. 

Eusebius (Mai, Nov. Pair. Bill. iv. i, p. 155 = Preuschen, 7) preserves 
from the Gospel according to the Hebrews another and much tamer version 
of the parable. In this version the Master had three servants, to each 
of whom he committed a talent. One like the prodigal son devoured his 
master's substance with harlots and flute-girls, another multiplied his talent 
by trading, while the third hid his talent. The last was merely rebuked, 
the first was shut up in prison, and the other rewarded. 

'AKOVOVTCOV Se avrwv ravra irpocrOels elirev irapa^oK^v I I 
Sia TO 6771)9 elvat 'lepoucraX^yU, CLVTOV KOI SOKCLV avrovs 
OTL irapci'XprjjuLa /-teXXet rj fiaGikeia TOV deov avafyaivecrOai,- 
elirrev ovv "Az/#po)7ro9 Tt9 evyevr)? eiropevOrj et9 ^(apav I 2 
fjiaicpav \a(3elv eavrw ftaaCKeiav KOI vTroarpk^rai. /ca\ecra<; 1 3 
Se Be/ca $ov\ovs eavrov eSco/cev CIVTOLS Be/co, Avas real eiirev 

ii. aKovovTU)v Se O.VTWV ravTa] kingdom, and perhaps that narrative 

The parable therefore is presumably has indirectly influenced Lk. here. 
spoken in the house of Zacchaeus. 12. x^P av pu-Kpu-i'] The country 

But the exact situation is not clearly is distant, and therefore some time 

made out by the evangelist. Cf. must elapse before the nobleman 

v. 7 n. can return as king. The circum- 

7rpocr#ets eurei/] A Hebraism, stances described here and in v. 14 

7 ^pi 11 . Cf. xx. 1 1 Trpocredero ire[jii{/ai, reflect the political relations of the 

and for Trpoo-^et's Gen. xxxviii. 5, Job Herodian princes with Rome. Cf. 

xxix. i, LXX. The meaning is, ' he esp. the history of Archelaus, Jos. 

went on to speak a parable.' Cf. Ant. xvii. 11. i. 
Blass, 74. 2; 6g. 4; Introd. p. Ixxxi. 13. The contrast with Mt. is 

Sta TO lyyi's . . . ava,c/>Guj'ecr$ai] remarkable. In Mt. the man has 

The evangelist similarly assigns a three servants, and he divides his 

purpose for the parable of the property among them not equally, 

Unrighteous Judge, xviii. i. The but according to their ability. To 

narrative of the request of the sons one he gives the considerable sum 

of Zebedee which Lk. has omitted of five talents, to another two, to 

from Mk. shewed that the disciples another one. Here the nobleman 

at this time entertained high hones calls ten of his servants and gives 

of the immediate appearance of the to each the trifling sum of one mina 


14 7T/305 avrovs irpayfJLarevo'aorOai eV &) ep^o^au. Oi Se 
TTo\lrai avrov e/j,Lcrovv avrov, Kal airecrreiKav 
OTTLCTO} avrov \eyovres Ov 0e\oju,ev rovrov 

1$ (f) rf/jids. eyevero ev rcS eiravekBelv avrov \aftovra 
rijv (3aa-L\,eiav Kal el'rrev (frwvrjd'fjvaL avrut TOL? 
TOUTOU? O69 $eB(*)fcei TO dpyvpiov, 'iva <yvoi ri 

16 revcravro. Trapeyevero 8e o vrpwro? \eya)v Kvpie, r) 

1 7 o~ov Se/ca Trpocrripydcraro fivcis. /cal elirev avrw 

dyaOe Sov\e, on, ev eka^io-ru) TTicrro? eyevov, la-Qi e^ovcriav 

1 8 e^wv eTTCLVw Sefca irokewv. Kal rf\6ev o Sevrepos \ejaiv 

19 C H fjiva erov, Kvpie, eTrolrjcrev irevre fjivas. elirev 5e Kal 

20 TOUTW Kat CTL; eirdvo) <yivov Trevre TroAewz/. Kal 6 erepo? 
rj\9ev \eywv Kv^te, tSou ^ yu-i/a aov rjv Gtyov aTro/cetyu-e- 

21 vi}v eV crovBapiq)' efyofBovfjirjV <ydp ere on avdpwrros av- 
crrrjpos el, aipeis o OVK eQi]K,a<$ Kal Oepifets o OVK e 

(perhaps 4) with which they are in a few things, I will set thee over 

to trade in his absence. In v. 16 many things.' But the ' cities ' fit in 

we hear of three servants only as with the conception of the king and 

in Mt., and we may perhaps infer his kingdom, and may be ascribed 

that the ' ten servants ' is a modifica- to the influence of the story of the 

tion. 8ov\ov<s has no article. The king upon the original story of the 

nobleman would probably have more pounds. In xvi. 10 we have the 

than ten slaves. "It is better that same thought with a simple contrast 

the servants should all receive the between 'little' and 'much.' The 

same sum, rather than that they incongruity of the reference to the 

should receive different sums ' ac- ' cities ' becomes yet greater at v. 24 

cording to their capacity' (Mt. xxv. where the one mina is taken from 

15), for it is their capacity which the idle servant and given to the 

the lord wishes first to test; he does servant who had made ten minae. 

not know it beforehand," Wellh. It is a strange recompense for a man 

Unlike Mt., Lk. does not directly who has just been set over ten cities. 

recount the proceedings of the slaves It is to be noted that Mt. passes from 

during their master's absence. This parable into interpretation when he 

is sufficiently told in the report to adds to the master's words of ap- 

the lord on his return. proval ' Enter thou into the joy of the 

16-19. In Mt. the two industrious Lord,' and so again when he consigns 

servants each succeed in doubling the idle servant to ' outer darkness.' 

the amount entrusted to them. In Luke remains throughout within the 

Luke they make different profits on limits of the story. 

the same original sum. 18. The slothful servant in Mt. 

17. tarOi e^ova-iav . . . TroAecoi/] buried his talent in the earth. 

The contrast is better in Mt. : 21. cupets o OVK e#r;/cas] Proverbial 

' because thou hast been faithful for unjust appropriation of another's 


00.9. /Velvet avrco E/c rov crro/jiaros crov Kpivci) ere, rrovrjpe 22 


s on, eya) avOpmrros avcmrjpo^ el/ja, alpwv o 
KOI Oepi^wv o ovic ecrrceipa; KOI Sid TI OVK 23 
TO dpyvpiov eirl rpdrrefav ; tcdya> e\du>v crvv 
TOKO) av avro ercpa^a. KOI rol$ irapecrruHriv elrrev ' A pare 24 
air avrov rfyv pvav KOI Sore ra> ra9 Be/to, uvas e^ovn" 

ical elrrav avrw 


Seica fj,vas" Xe7&) V/MV on 

rravrl r<o eyovn SoOrfcrerai,, arro Be rov ^ e^oi/T09 /cal 

apQt')<Terai. Il^rjv Toi/9 e^Opovs JJLOV rovrovs rovs 27 
0e\.r]cravrd<} fie fiacrCKevcrai err' avrovs dydyere wSe Kal 
Karacr(f)daT avrovs efJurrpoffOev [JLOV. Kal elrrwv ravra 28 
erropevero efJLrrpocrOev avaftaivwv et9 

25 ora vers DW 69 al pauc b c syr. vt boh Lucif 26 

7rpoaTL0Tai D: irpoffTeOrja-eTcu d syr.sin Clem: add KO.L Trpoareff-rja-eTai sin. cur: add 
/cat Trepttrcret/^crerai 69 etc vg (codd) Cyr (cf. Matt xxv. 29) 

labour. Cf. Philo ap. Eus. Praep. 
viii. 7 a 

KareO'rjKev, ^778' 

IK Trpacrias, /wr/S' e/< 
e aAwi/os; Jos. c. 

ii. 30 i<av 




eiVi /coAaa-ets, and for further exx. 
see Bernays, Gesch. Abhandl. i. pp. 
272 f. 

24 f. This verse introduces a new 
thought. The man who has succeeded 
already will carry his success further, 
while the man who has, not increased 
his possessions will lose what he has. 
Lk. has already (viii. 18) given the 
saying in v. 26, reproducing it from 
Mk. It will have been generally 
current and available for appro- 
priate use. In the present context 
the speaker is still the king in 
the parable, not Jesus. The inter- 
ruption in v. 25 is very awkward, 
and the textual authority for its 
omission is strong enough to make 
it probable that it is an interpola- 

27. We revert abruptly to the 
disloyal citizens who have not been 

mentioned since v. 14. We are to 
understand the Jews, who refused 
Christ as their king. It was a not 
infrequent practice that the van- 
quished should be slain in the 
presence of the victor. Cf. I Regn. 
xv. 33 (Agag slain by Samuel) ; 
Plut. Cornp. Lysan. et Sull. 476 D 
AovKp'jTiov 3 O</>eAAai/ . . ' . ev 

(Si'AAas) ; Caesar B.C. iii. 28. 4 " qui 
omnes ad eum (Otacilium Crassum) 
producti contra religionem iuris- 
iurandi in eius conspectu crudelis- 
sime interficiuntur." The vengeance 
of the king recalls the tone of xviii. 
1-8. It is very different in spirit 
from the lament over Jerusalem 
below, vv. 41-44, and the difference 
is perhaps in favour of the hypothesis 
that except for the preface in v. n 
Luke is not himself responsible for 
the amplification of the parable, 
which may have stood in the source 
as we read it now. 

28. Cf. Mk. x. 32 (the beginning 
of the paragraph omitted by Lk. after 
v- 34)- 


JESUS AT JERUSALEM (xix. 29 f.) 

With certain modifications to be noted below, Luke's narrative of the 
entry into Jerusalem and of the events in Jerusalem which led up to the end 
reproduces the narrative of Mark. 

Jesus, according to Mark's account, after receiving a Messianic ovation 
from his followers near the Mount of Olives, entered the city and proceeded 
to the Temple ; then " after he had looked around at all things," he returned 
to Bethany with the Twelve for the night. The next day they return to 
Jerusalem. On the road Jesus curses the unfruitful fig-tree. Jesus again 
goes to the Temple, where he casts out the traders from the Temple courts 
and " overthrows the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those 
who sold the doves." His action aroused the hostility of the scribes and chief 
priests who, in their alarm at the extent of his support, forthwith tried to 
find him that they might put him out of the way. In the evening Jesus and 
the disciples again left the city. On the morning of the next day they return 
to Jerusalem. As they pass the fig-tree Peter observes that it has withered 
away. The incident calls forth sayings from Jesus on faith and prayer. On 
their return to Jerusalem Jesus walks in the Temple, where he is encountered 
by the chief priests, scribes, and elders, who question his authority. Jesus 
parries the questions, and then proceeds to expound in the allegory of the 
vineyard and its wicked husbandmen the history of the past and the fate 
which awaits both himself and the Jewish people. Again " they sought to 
take him, and they feared the multitude, for they knew that he had spoken 
the parable against them." Jesus is then further questioned, first by a com- 
bination of Pharisees and Herodians on the payment of tribute to Caesar, 
and then by Sadducees on belief in the Resurrection. He replies to and 
silences his questioners. Lastly, Jesus is questioned by a scribe as to the 
first commandment of the law, and the scribe endorsing his answer is com- 
mended by Jesus as being not far from the Kingdom of God. Jesus then 
in his turn asks a question to prove that the Christ is not David's son, but 
David's Lord. The day of questioning in the Temple ends with a denunciation 
of the pretensions of the scribes and the incident of the widow's mite. The 
words of the disciples, commenting on the great building of the Temple, as 
they leave, make the occasion for the great apocalyptic discourse which is 
delivered upon the Mount of Olives. Mark then proceeds to the events which 
led directly to the Crucifixion. Two days before the feast the priests and 
scribes were plotting his death. The feast at Bethany in the house of Simon 


the leper and the betrayal by Judas are recorded as happening in the interval 
which elapsed between the time of the plot and " the first day of unleavened 
bread, when they killed the passover," on the evening of which day, as 
Mark tells the history, Jesus was arrested. The narrative of Mark from the 
entry into Jerusalem until the Resurrection falls into a definite chronological 
arrangement. Jesus was condemned by Pilate, crucified and buried on the day 
before the Sabbath, i.e. on Friday. On the Sabbath his body rested in the 
tomb. On the first day of the week the tomb was found empty. Reckoning 
backwards from this point, the feast at Bethany and the betrayal by Judas 
are placed in the interval between the note of time at xiv. I (two days before 
the feast) and the Thursday evening when the Last Supper was eaten 
probably, therefore, on Wednesday. The questioning in the Temple and the 
eschatological discourse are then to be placed on the Tuesday. On the 
Monday Jesus cursed the fig-tree and cleansed the Temple. He entered 
Jerusalem in triumph on the Sunday. There is thus a very clear and definite 
chronological arrangement of the narrative in Mark. But a variety of 
considerations make it probable that this chronological arrangement was not 
itself given to Mark by tradition, but has been imposed by him upon his 
materials, for his materials in some degree witness against his own construction. 

Since Mark's narrative is the basis of Luke's, it will be convenient to 
summarise here the chief difficulties to which Mark's narrative gives rise. 
The most striking inconsistency is that if the Last Supper was, as Mark 
asserts, the Passover, the priests do in actual fact what in xiv. I they are 
reported as saying that they will not do : they arrest Jesus at the time of the 
Feast. This question is considered further below. .However, neither the 
Marcan dating nor the Johannine dating of the Crucifixion is incompatible 
with the Marcan chronological arrangement of the week. On either view the 
Last Supper was eaten on Thursday night and Jesus was crucified on Friday. 

At xiv. 49 Jesus after his arrest says, " I was daily with you teaching 
in the Temple." This seems to suggest a much longer period of teaching 
in. Jerusalem than the actual Marcan chronology allows. All the recorded 
teaching and disputing is confined to one day the Thursday. (On Monday 
also, after the clearing of the Temple, " the people were astonished at his 
teaching.") Moreover, as it has been often pointed out, Jesus clearly has con- 
nexions both with Jerusalem and with Bethany which are not easy to explain 
on the theory that Mark's ' Holy Week ' exhausts the period of his Jerusalem 
ministry. Literary analysis indirect!} 7 confirms this conclusion, for it appears 
to indicate that the Marcan narrative represents a combination of materials 


which are not homogeneous. The eschatological discourse in Mk. xiii. has a 
character of its own which marks it off from the rest of the Gospel (see below), 
and the same applies to the parable of the wicked husbandmen, which in tone 
and content presents a striking contrast to the replies of Jesus to his assailants. 
The replies to the Sanhedrin and to the Sadducees are at once decisive and 
cautious. They seem directly intended to avoid forcing an issue. They are 
fully compatible with a consciousness on the part of Jesus that he stands in 
a position of grave peril, but nothing is said to anticipate the future, and the 
perspective of the Crucifixion which has controlled Mark's narrative since 
Peter's confession disappears for the time being. In the parable of the wicked 
husbandmen, on the other hand, Jesus clearly indicates that he is the Messiah, 
God's Son, and that he is to perish at the hands of his antagonists. The 
parable is regarded by many critics as an early apocalypse which sets the 
death of the Messiah in its due relation to the past history of God's people, 
and to the contemporary position of the Church. Even if we held with Pro- 
fessor Burkitt (Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History 
of Religion, vol. ii. pp. 321 f.) that it goes back to Jesus himself, it is difficult 
to avoid suspicion of its present setting. . It seems to have come from some 
independent source, and to have been incorporated with the succession of 
controversies between Jesus and his antagonists at Jerusalem. Loisy acutely 
notes that the sentence, " they left him and went away," Mk. xii. 12, is an 
awkward pendant to the account of the consultation of the chief priests and 
scribes how they might put him to death. Did they consult together in his 
presence and then leave him ? On the other hand, these words would give 
a perfectly good conclusion to the preceding narrative concerning the authority 
of Jesus. Mk. xii. i-i2a has then, on this theory, been worked in by Mark 
into other material. Perhaps, as Loisy suggests, it led up in some earlier form 
of Gospel- writing directly to the Passion. The narratives of controversy 
seem again to form a series by themselves, which we may compare with 
the series of controversial incidents in the Galilean ministry grouped together 
in Mk. ii.-iii. 

We now note the chief modifications which Luke has made in the Marcan 

He has filled in the scene of the triumphal approach to Jerusalem with 
the complaint of Pharisees, who murmur at the enthusiasm of the disciples, 
and with the lament of Jesus over the city. It is possible to suppose that he 
uses another source, but it is not necessary to do so : both additions repeat 
motifs which we recognise elsewhere in the Gospel. 


Luke has fused into one two separate Marcan visits to Jerusalem. In Luke, 
Jesus on his entry proceeds at once to the Temple and expels the traders. 
The incident is very briefly narrated, and it does not, as in Mark, provide 
the occasion of the question concerning the authority of Jesus. See notes 
on xix. 47, 48 and xx. I. (Similarly in Luke's narrative of the Trial, the 
charge that Jesus had declared that he would destroy the Temple is dropped. 
Controversy concerning the Temple almost disappears from Luke's narrative 
of the last days.) 

Luke has omitted the incident of the cursing of the unfruitful fig-tree, 
and the sayings of which it was the occasion in Mark. He almost certainly 
read it in Mark (cf. xvii. 6 supra with note), and for obvious reasons pre- 
ferred to discard it. 

By omitting to record the separate journeys of Jesus to and from Bethany, 
Luke has obscured the Marcan chronology of the last days. In their place 
he has substituted the general statement at xix. 47 that Jesus was teaching 
daily in the Temple. This is repeated again at xxi. 37, with the addition that 
at night he went out to lodge on the Mount of Olives. There is no indication 
as to the duration of the Jerusalem ministry. 

Lastly, Luke has omitted the question of the scribe concerning the chief 
commandment (Mk. xii. 28-34). Like Matthew he stumbled at the approbation 
which in Mark Jesus pronounces upon a scribe. An alternative version in 
which the lawyer ' tempts ' Jesus had already been given as an introduction 
to the parable of the Good Samaritan, x. 25 f. 

Luke's treatment of his sources is then in keeping with his procedure else- 
where. The few omissions are readily explicable, and they are compensated 
for by other passages in the book. The expansions are subsidiary amplifi- 
cations .which all along presuppose the Marcan framework. The Marcan 
chronology is obscured, but Luke aims at smoothing and improving the 
transitions from one paragraph to another. 

Kat eyevero &)9 rpyyicrev eis T$r)Q(f)aryr} KOI Q^Qavia irpos 29 
TO o'joo? TO Ka\ov/jievov EXcuooz/, aire&Teikev Svo rwv fjLadir]- 

\e<y(i)V TTrdyere el$ rrjv tcarevavrL KM/A^V, ev y 30 
evpr/creTG 7rw\oi> $e$e/jievov, e^>' oz/ 

29. /cat eyei/ero ws] Lk. again colt, nor made an arrangement with 

introduces his favourite construction. its owners, but he knows beforehand 

Mk. /cat ore lyyt^oixri. what will happen, because God, who 

2 9'3 3- "We must not rationalise directs what is to happen, is with 

here. Jesus has not already ordered t,he him," Wellh. (Ev. Marci, p. 87). 


TrcoTrore dvQpwTrcov eKaOiarev, /cat \vo-avre<s avrov d<yd<yere. 

3 1 KOL edv rt? uytta? epwra Am ri \vere; oimw? epelre on, 

32 'O /cvpios avrov %peiav ^X l " d7re\.0ovre<} Be ol arc- 

33 eo~ra\fJievoL evpov /ca$o>9 elirev avrols. \vovrwv Be avrwv 
rov TTCO\OV elirav ol Kvpioi avrov irpo^ avrovs Tt \vere 

34 rov irw\ov ; OL Be elirav on, 'O Kvpios avrov %peiav 
3 5 KOL rjyayov avrov TT/JO? rov lr)o~ovv, KOL 

avrwv ra Ifjidria, eVt, rov TrwXoy eVe/3t/3acraz/ rov 
36 TTopevopevov Be avrov vTrecrrpwvvvov ra ifjidria eavrcov ev 

30. /cat A.ixrai'Tes ayayere] Mk. 
Xvcrare avrov Kal ^e^oere. The 
Lucan version is weaker. 

31. 6 Kvpios . . . e'x e ''] From Mk. 
The Marcan parallel is the only 
passage in Mk. where 6 KV/HOS is 
used of Jesus. Perhaps, as Wellh. 
suggests, the words are given an 
intentionally mysterious sound. 

32. ctTreA^oT/Tes Se] Lk. again con- 
verts an independent principal verb 
into a participle (Mk. KOL aTrrjXOov 
KCU), and substitutes /<a#a>s etTrci/ 
aurots for the repetition and detail 
in Mk.'s account: TrwAoi/ Sebe/xevov 

7T6 TOU 

33. oLKvptoi, avrov] The owners of 
the colt are introduced by Lk. In 
Mk. the question is asked by ' some 
who stood by.' 

35. errt rov TrcoAof 7re/3i)6acrav] 
Thus the prophecy of Zech. ix. 9 is 
fulfilled. The Messiah approaches 
Jerusalem "lowly, and riding upon an 
ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an 
ass." The scripture is cited in Mt. 
and Jo. It was certainly present to 
the mind of Mk. and Lk. 

36-38. The differences from Mk. 
are here considerable, but they are 
in keeping with Lk.'s style and 
method. There is no necessity to 
conjecture (with Taylor) another 
written source. By adding the state- 
ment that the demonstration took 
place as Jesus drew near to the 

descent of the Mount of Olives, Lk. 
prepares for the lament which Jesus 
is to pronounce over the city when 
it comes into view. The cutting 
down of the palm branches is omitted 
from Mk., and we hear only of the 
strewing of garments before Jesus. 
That "the whole multitude of the 
disciples rejoiced and began to praise 
God with a great voice for all the 
wonders they had seen" is a char- 
acteristic Lucan expansion of Mark's 
sentence, "Those who went before 
and those who followed after cried 
out," of. xviii. 43 supra and passim. 
In his version of the words of the 
people's cry, Luke omits, as his 
manner is, the foreign word 'Ho- 
sanna,' and for 'Hosanna in the 
highest' he substitutes 'peace in 
heaven and glory in the highest.' 
This recalls the angelic song in ii. 14, 
and here too the evangelist probably 
means us to think of the jubilation 
of the crowd as mingling with the 
triumphant songs of the angelic host 
in heaven. But in ii. 14 the words 
are ' peace on earth,' and this is very 
appropriate to the birth of the Prince 
of Peace. ' Peace in heaven ' should 
here perhaps be interpreted of the 
gift of peace which is laid up in 
heaven for God's people. ' Peace on 
earth ' at this moment in the history 
would not be in place. Contrast 
v. 42 infra. Luke also omits from 

oSw. eyyu^ovTos Se avrov 778-77 ?rpo9 rrj tcara/Sao-ei rot 37 

TWV cuwi/ ijp^avTo airav TO irX'tjOos TWV 

alveiv TOV Oeov fywvy /jL<yd\r] irepl irao~wv 

EyAorHMeNOC 6 e 
o ySao-fcXev?, eN O'NO'MATI Kypfoy 

ev ovpavw 

KOL Soa ev 

rtz/e? TWV <&apiaraia)v IITTO TOV o^Kov elnrav TT^O? 39 
ov AtSacr/caXe, eVtr/yaT/croz/ rot? yua^rat? crov. KOI 40 

s elnrev Ae^yo) vfjilv, eav OVTOL cnwm^a'ovGiv, ol 
\i6oi, Kpd^ovcrLV. Kal eo? fyryicrev, Iftcbv Trjv 41 

37 airav] airavrav W Orig (In Joh x. 21 ) iraaiav . . . dvva/j.ewi> codd 
paene omn : TTOLVTUV . , . dwa/^euv B 579: iravruv (tantum) syr.vt: iravrwv . . . 

yeivoiievuiv D 2 : totum comma oni c ff 2 i 1 s 38 o epx.oij.evos om fc$H e 1 
Orig o (3acri\evs om WA* 579 al pauc vg(codd) boh(cod) 

Mark, after the quotation from Ps. scribes rebuke children who cried 

cxvii. (cxviii.) 26, the words : evAo- to Jesus in the temple " Hosanna 

yt][jt.evr] t] ep)(O[j.ei>rj f3acri\.eLa TOV to the Son of David." 

7ra.T/oos i/fcwi/ Aat/etS. Possibly he 39. Ttves T(av ^apto-atcov aTrb TOU 

felt them to be out of place after o \\ov~] We have not hitherto been 

v. ii supra. Instead he has inserted prepared for the presence of Pharisees 

/^acriAeus to stand in apposition to in the crowd. Syr.sin omits TOJV 
6 epxoptvos. In Lk., therefore, Jesus ^a/o/.craiwv, and Wellh. thinks this is 
is explicitly hailed as the Messianic the true reading. But it is appropriate 
king ; the same is almost certainly that the enthusiasm of the multitude 
implied in Mk., though Schweitzer should call forth an answering corn- 
holds that in Mk. o ep^o/ievos means plaint from the standing enemies of 
Elijah, Mystery of the Kingdom of Jesus. 

God, E.T. pp. 1-55. 40. eav o-iWTrv/a-otxri] For eav c. 

37. Trepl Tracrwi/ &v eiSov Suj/u/xecov] indie, cf. I Thess. iii. 8, I Jo. v. 15, 

This seems out of place. The only and see Moulton, Prol. pp. 168, 187. 

miracle which has been recorded since 41-44- Peculiar to Lk. The lament 

the healing of the ten lepers on the of Jesus over the city while he is 

borders of Samaria and Galilee (xvii. surrounded by the shouting multi- 

1 1 ) is the healing, of the blind man tude makes a fine dramatic con- 
outside Jericho. The reading of D trast. The tone of this passage, which 
Trepl TrdvT(ov <Si/ eiSoi/ y ivo/xeVcoi', par- is markedly different from that of 
tially supported by B and syr.vt, xviii. 7, xix. 28 supra, is heard again 
is not open to this objection. in the words addressed to the women 

39-40. Not in Mark, but there is who followed him to crucifixion (xxii/ 

a corresponding scene in Mt. xxi. 28 f.) another passage peculiar to 

15-16 where the chief priests and * Luke. 



42 iro\iv eK\avcrev CTT CLVTIJV, \eywv on Et eyvcos ev rf} 
ypepa ravTrj KOI crv ra TT/JO? elprjvrjv vvv Be e/cpv/Brj 

43 dTrb o<p6a\fjiwv crov. OTL rf^ovcTLV rj/jiepai, eirl ere KOI 
7rapejub/3d\ovcnv ol e^jdpoi crov %dpatcd croi Kal irept,- 

44 KVK\cocrovcrLV ere Kal ervve^ovcriv ere irdvTodev, KOI eA&cj>ioYCiN 
ere Kal T< reKNA coy ev croi, KCLL OVK defrrjcrovcnv \i9ov erri 
\iOov ev croi, dv0' cov OVK eyvcos TOV Kcupov T^? eVtcr/coTr?}? 

45 erov. Kat elcre\6u>v et? TO lepov rjp^aro eK(3d\\eiv 

46 TOL^ TreoXoO^ra?, \eya>v avrois Ye^painaL Kdvl ecr^i 6 oTKo'c 
MOY O!KOC npoceyxfic, vyu-e?9 8e avrov eTroirjcraTe 

47 Kat rjv oio'dcrtccov TO icaO? fjfjLepav ev TCO iepS- ol Be 

/cal ol 

42. ra TT/DOS elprjvrjv], 'the con- 
ditions i.e. the relations with God 
which make for thy peace.' This 
interpretation makes a contrast with 
the scene of war depicted in the next 
verse and therefore seems better than 
' the conditions which make for peace 
with. God ' (so Klostermann). There is 
possibly a play on the name Jeru- 
salem meaning opao-is etpryi/^s. Cf. 
Klostermann ad loc. eKvr so. ra 

avTov a r jro\ecrai KOL ol 

messenger, but 'the city fails to 
recognise him. 

45-46. On the omissions from Mk. 
before and after these verses see 
Iritrod. above. 

46. yeyprxTrrat . . . ot/cos irpocr- 
7 yu-P " f os /w.ou 
K/\^^r)creTai Tracrtv 
rots tOvecrw. Quoted by Mk. in 
full. Lk.'s omission of Tracrtv rots 

43-44. The siege is very clearly 
anticipated, as in xxi. 20 f. urvv- 
eovo-iv] A favourite Lucan word. 

44. eSa.faovcrii'] The word may 
mean ' to lay level with the ground ' 
or ' to dash against the ground,' of. 
Ps. cxxxvii. Q eSac/ue? ra i^TTia crou 
rrjv Trerpav, Hos. xiv. I TO, 
Oia avrwv e8a(l>ur0'f')crovT(u. 
With the latter meaning the verb 
may govern both ere and TO, re/ci'tt. 
Welih., however, prefers to regard 
Kal TO, rcKva <rov kv croi as a separate 
clause co-ordinated, as in Semitic 
idiom, with the preceding : ' while 
thy children are within thee.' 

roi/ kaipov Tyjs eTrtcrKOTT?/? crov] 
Jesus visits the city as God's last 

is probably deliberate. The 
Temple had fallen, and the nations 
were finding their way into the 
Church, not into the Temple of the 
old order. 

47-48. The general statement that 
Jesus taught daily in the Temple is 
here interpolated by Lk. It has the 
effect of weakening the connexion 
between the cleansing of the Temple 
and the plot of the rulers. Contrast 
Mk. at VJKoiKruj/ ot dp^Lepeis /cat ot 
ypa^arets KCU I^TOW /<rA., and cf. 
xx. i infra n. 

47. ot Se a^xie/Dets Kat ot jpafji- 
/xarets] Cf. Jos. Ant. xx. 10 fin. /xera 
Se rrjv ['HpwSou Kal 'Ap^Xdov] 
reAevrT/v dpiCTTOKpaTia [JLZV rjv t'j 7roA.t- 
reta, TI]V 8e Trpocrracriav TOV Wvov<s ol 


irpwroi TOV \aov, Kal ov% rjvpia'Kov rb ri TroirjO'cocriv, o 48 
jap cLTras e^eKpe/Juero avrov 

Kal eyevero ev fiia rwv rjfjbepwv SiSdarKovro^ avrov TOV I XX. 
\CLQV ev rrj) lepti Kal evayyeXi&uevov eTrecrrrjcrav ol dp-^i- 
epeis Kal ol ypauuareis avv rot? Trpe&lBvrepois, Kal eirrav 2 
\eyovres TT^DO? avrov EtVof f)iMV ev iroia e^ovaia ravra 

, rf rt9 eanv 6 Sew? croc rr\v e^ovtriav ravryv. 3 

Be eiTrev TT^OO? avrovs 'Ep&m;cra> vpas Ka<ya> 
\oyov, Kal eiirare JAOL To ^airna '^a ^\wavov ejf ovpavov 4 
av6 ptoTTWv ; ol Se avveXoyla-avro irpos eavrov? 5 
on E*av elTTtojJiev E^ ovpavov, epel Ata TI 
OVK eTTLcrreixrare avru> ; eav Be eiTrwfjbev 'E dv0pa)7ro)v, 6 
o Xao9 avra? Kara\i6dcrei rjuas, TreireLcr^evof; yap ecrnv 

ol TrpwTot TOV Aaov] Add. Luc. preaching of Jesus, not to his cleans- 

The use of TT/ICOTOS for a leader or ing of the Temple. 

chief is common in Lk. and Acts. 2. rts icrrtv 6 Sous (rot ;] ' who is 

Also Mk. vi. 21. he who gave you . . .?' More 

48. Kat oi>x ">)vpicrKov TO ri iron')- idiomatic than Mk. ri's o-oi e'8toKi/ ; 

(rcoo-/,] Add. Luc. He thus prepares 4. The counter-question as to the 

for the various devices to entrap source and authority of John's Bap- 

Je,sus which follow. tism (i.e. of his whole mission) is 

e^e/cpe/zero]. Here only in N.T. not a mere dialectical device (as 

Good Gk. from Thuc. downwards, the interpretative words in vv. 5, 6 

Also Gen. xliv. 30 ' hung upon him might tempt the reader to suppose). 

listening.' Mk. Tras yap o o'^Aos If Jesus had been baptized by John 

e^7rAvjcro"TO eTrt rfj StSa^rj avrov. and believed his preaching to the 

I. In Mk. the authority of Jesus is people to have been the preliminary 

questioned by the members of the to his own, it was right that he 

Sanhedrin on the day following should require his critics to face the 

the cleansing of the Temple, after issue which John had already pre- 

Jesus has returned to Jerusalem from sented to them, before he consented 

Bethany, ravra Mk. xi. 28 ( = Lk. to discuss the question of his own 

xx. 2) refers in Mk. to the cleansing authority. 

of the Temple. The connexion dis- 5. o-vveXoyio-ai'To] Class. Gk., Plut. 

appears here. The introduction to etc., Inscrr., Papyri, LXX. Here only 

the paragraph is re-written in a in N.T. SieAoyt^oj'To Mk. 

vague sense, ' It came to pass on 6. o Aaos . . . ->//zas] So Lk. inter- 

one of the days,' and by saying that prets their fears. Mk. simply e'(/>o- 

Jesus was * teaching in the Temple fiovvro rov o^Aov. 

and preaching the Gospel' (Mk. TreTretoyzei'os yap ... emu] A neatly 

TreptTraToi'i'TOS avrov ev TCO ie/o<o) turned Greek sentence. Mk. aavrvs 

Lk. makes ravra (v. 2) refer to the 1 ya/> eix oi/ TOI/ 'Iwdvryv oVrtos 6'rt 


7 *\Q)av7)V TrpofyrjTiqv elvai,' KOL aTreKpiQrja-av pr) el&evai irodev. 

8 Kal 6 'iT/crofc elirev aurofc OvSe eya) \<ya) vfuv ei> 

d), 7ret$o/otat &TQ attack : if the enemies of the Chris- 

favourite words with Lk. Never in tians recognised the authority of the 

Mk. (except x. 24 ireTroi&evat ITTI, ' to Baptist, they ought also to recognise 

trust in'). the authority of Jesus. 

7. fj,rj elSevai iru&tv] Oratio obliqua. On the other hand it may be 

Mk. OVK oi8afj.ev. urged that we are obliged to start 

Bultmann, discussing the Marcan with the narrative as it stands, 

original of this paragraph (p. 9), and the dialogue, as it stands, whether 

thinks it probable that the association rabbinically correct or not, is very 

of this incident with the cleansing of effective. No doubt the dilemma of 

the Temple is due to Mark and is the priests is interpreted from an 

not original. " The cleansing of the outside point of view, i.e. it is assumed' 

Temple does not seem appropriate that the hierarchy had considered 

as the occasion of a Rabbinic debate, John's message and had rejected it. 

such as that which we find here." We may suppose that the real 

But, he continues, the debate itself, thoughts of the hierarchy would be 

as we have it, must have been trans- somewhat as follows : if we allow 

formed, for in order to conform to John's authority to have been from 

the type of a Rabbinic debate, the heaven, we shall be obliged to allow 

counter-question should itself give that he had no more credentials than 

the reply to the original question, this man can shew us. That is a 

And this is actually the case here, detail. The existing dialogue is a 

Mk. xi. 30 contains the reply, and it powerful and coherent whole. The 

is assumed on both sides that the point is not reached till Mk. xi. 33 

authority of John is recognised. ( = Lk. v. 8), when Jesus refuses to 

" As John had his authority from answer. If we regard v. 33 as a 

heaven, so also have I." This, B. secondary addition we are left with 

holds, was misunderstood by some an intolerably lame reply, which 

later narrator, who, starting from the would have had very little force 

presupposition that the hierarchs had either as a saying of the historical 

not believed in John, made up the Jesus to the authorities at Jerusalem, 

conclusion, vv. 31 f., to suit his pre- or as a contribution to the contro- 

suppositions. Verses 28-30 are a versy of the early Christian corn- 

genuine Palestinian apophthegma, but, munity which Bultmann, solely on the 

in Bultmann's opinion, it is open to authority of this text, has imagined. 

question whether the incident is a Moreover, it may be noted that 

genuine historical narrative, or an the manner in which Jesus meets his 

imaginary creation of the early com- antagonists is conceived in the same 

munity. The community, he sup- spirit as the subsequent controversy 

poses, were faced by opponents over the tribute money. In both 

(apparently the Jewish authorities, cases Jesus maintains his own ground 

though this is not quite clear) who and refuses to play into the hands 

appealed to the Baptist and played of his opponents. Bultmann (p. 12) 

off his claims against those of Jesus, sees no ground to doubt that the con- 

This incident may be supposed to troversy over the tribute money is a 

have been intended to turn this genuine historical incident. The two 


e^ovcna TavTa TTOLW. "H^aro 8e rrrpbs TOV \aov 9 

Xeyew rrjv irapafioXyv TavT-rjv "AvOpcaTros e'c^YTeyceN <^/v\ne- 
ALONA, fcal e'^eSero CLVTOV yetopyois, real aTre^rifirjaev %p6vov<? 
IKCLVOVS. KOI Kaipw d7TecrTL\ev 7r/)05 rou9 ^eoypjov^ $ov\ov, IO 
'iva, (fjro TOV tcapTTQv TOV a/L67reXft>yo5 Saxrova-w avro>* ol $e 
tyewpyol QaTckcrTeCKav CLVTOV SelpavTe? icevov. Kal Tcpoa- I I 
e06TO eTepov Tre/jL^ac SovKov ol Se /cd/ceivov SeipavTe? KOI 

e^anrkaTziKav icevov. teat irpoaeOeTo TpiTOv 1 2 
01 Be KOI TOVTOV TpavfjiaTia-avTes e%e(3a\ov. elirev 1 3 

TOV 'd/jLTreXwvos Tl iroirjcrw ; Tre 

o KVios TOV jLTrewvos iroircrw ; TreA'a) TOV vlov 

TOV ayaTT'rjTov' t<Tft)9 TOVTOV evTpa7njo~ovTaL. 6'Soi/T9 14 

narratives seem to stand on much the i. 53 (Magnificat) it is found again 

same footing and may reasonably be combined with KCVOS. 
supposed to come from the same 11-12. Trpoo-eflero Tre/xi/'cu] A He- 

stratum of tradition. Cf . Albertz, Die braism, cf. Ju. iii. 12, iv. i, x. 6 

synoptischen Streitgesprdche, pp. 23 f. (LXX). Again in Acts xii. 3, and 

g. r//>ttTo <5e . . . irapaf^oX^v cf. xix. 1 1 supra. Lk. thus again 

Tavriyi'] Mk. Kal r/p^aro avTol<s ei/ gives a more definitely scriptural 

Trapa/3oXai<s AaXetv. Thus in Mk. colouring to the language of his 

Jesus continues to address the source. Mk. Kal ir<iXiv ttTreareiAci/. 
members of the Sanhedrin, but the u. In the account of the fate of 

presence of the people is assumed in the second servant Lk. has dropped 

Mk. too; see xii. 12. Here Jesus the obscure Marcan word !/<e<a- 

addresses the people, but the members Aiwcrav and assimilated the language 

of the Sanhedrin remain in the back- to the preceding verse. 
ground. See v. 19 infra. 12. In Mk. the third servant is 

tyvrevarev a/xTreAwj/a] Founded on killed. Lk. enhances the climax of 

Is. v. i f. But Lk. has omitted the the story the murder of the son 

further details of the man's care for by changing this into ' they wounded 

his vineyard, which Mk. has repro- him and cast him out.' For a similar 

duced from Isaiah. reason he drops Mk. v. $b Kal 

Xpovows i/cavoijs] Add. Luc. t/<avos TroAAovs dAAovs, ov<s utv Sepovres 

of time very freq. in Lk. and Acts ; oOs Se aTroKTeWwres. 
cf. also Ro. xv. 23. Not in the 13. Instead of recording the actual 

other Gospels. Classical. sending of the son, Lk. throws the 

10. iva , . . Swcrovo-i] Cf. Blass, whole into the form of a reflection 

65.2. e 3 a7reo-TeiAaj/avTbi/Sa'/3.i'Te9 on the part of the master of the 

Ktvov] A participle (Setpavres) again vineyard, prefixed by the deliberative 

replaces a principal vb. in Mk. Note rt Tro^o-toy for which cf. xii. 17, 18, 

also the double compound ca.7r- xvi. 3. Mk. cYt eVa t^v t iiwv 

eo-reiAei/ for Mk. (XTrccrreiAeK. The uyainjTov aTreo-reiAei/ UTJTOV ecr^arov 

verb l^aTToo-reAAoj occurs Gal. iv. 4, TT/OOS U.VTOVS Aeywc ort ' 

6. Otherwise peculiar to Lk. (supra vovrai TOV vlov fwv. 
xxiv. 49 and 7 times in Acts). In TOV uyuTn/Toi/] Cf. iii. 22 n. 


avrov ol 

Ovro? ecrnv o K\,ijpov6jj,o^' aTTOKrelvco/Jiev avrov, iva TI 
1 5 yevrjrai, fj K\rjpovofjiia' Kal e/c/3aX6We9 avrov e&> rov 
aireKreuvav. ri ovv Troirjcrei, avrols 6 

1 6 rov tt/^TreXwi/o?; e\evcrerai Kal arro\ecrei TOI>? <ye(0p<yov<s 
rovrovs, Kal Saxret rov a^rcekwva a\\ots. aKov<ravre<s Be 

_.'? ~I\/T^ ' f P\ V 5 O-v ft > n f rp / f 

I/ enrav Mr) Devoir o. o oe e/-tpA,e / yra? avroi? euirev JU ovv 

e<rriv ro yeypa/Jb/Jievov rovro 

AiGoN ON AneAoKiM\c<\N oi 
ofroc epeNHGH eic Kec()AAh<N 

1 8 Tra? o Trecrajv eV e/ceivov rov \l0ov <rvv&Ka<rQr](rerai 

15. Kal eK^aAoi/res . . . aTre/c- inheritance. It appears from Acts 

Mk. KCU Xa/36vrc<s u.TTKTi,vav iv. ii, I Pet. ii. 4-7 that this Psalm 

v, KOU l^e/3aAoi/ auTov e<o you was in current use as a Messianic 

/xTreAoVos. Both Mt. and Lk. re- text in the primitive Church. In 

verse this order: the son is first cast Justin, Dial. 34 AiQo<$ is one of the 

out and then slain. We may prob- names for Christ. In i Pet. ii. 4 f. 

ably see in this change a desire to the verse from the Psalm is found in 

assimilate the allegory more clearly combination with two passages from 

to the circumstances of the death of Isaiah viii. 14 'the stone of stum- 

Jesus, who suffered 'without the bling,' and xxviii. 16 'the precious 

gate,' Heb. xiii. 12. corner-stone.' The two prophecies 

16. aKoi'o-avres Se . . . o 5e e/z- of Isaiah are found united in Ro. ix. 
/^Aei/'as avrois etrrei'] By inserting 33 ; of. Eph. ii. 20. It is probable 
these words Lk. marks off the par- that a combination of Is. viii. 14 with 
able from the sayings which follow. Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) lies behind the 
The subject of a/cowrou'res is o Aaos Lucan verse which follows. 

to whom the parable is addressed 18. Peculiar to Lk. InMt. xxi. 44 

(v. 9). They pray that so terrible the words are omitted by D. lat.vt 

a fate may be averted from them, syr.sin Orig, and in other texts 

The effect of the parable upon the no doubt represent an interpolation 

leaders is related below at v. ig. from Lk. The verse supplements 

17. The appended reference to the the imagery of the exaltation of the 
scripture ( Ps. cxvii. (cxviii.) 22) intro- Stone by the image of the Stone as 
duces the thought of the divine vindica- an instrument of destruction, whether 
tion of the rejected son and heir. This to those who fall against it or to 
could not be worked into the alle- those on whom it falls. The images 
gorical form of the preceding parable, are very confused and probably ori- 
Notwithstanding the rejection of the ginate in scriptural texts dealing 
stone by the builders, it is placed with the. Stone, that is Christ. The 
as corner-stone ; notwithstanding the first half of the verse is probably 
rejection of the heir by the husband- suggested by Is. viii. 14 (see preceding 
men, yet, when he is raised from the note) and the latter by Daniel ii. 
dead, he becomes ruler, of God's 44, where, in Theodotion (cf. Swete, 



Kal er 


' av Trea-rj, \iKjJbrjor6i avrov. a er)rri<Tav 19 

real ol ap^iepeis eTnftakeiv eV avrov ra<s 
ev avrf) rrj wpa, Kal efyofBrjOrjcrav rov \aov, eyvw- 
cav yap on 7T/905 avrovs etirev rrjv nrapaf3o\r]v ravrrjv. 
Kal Traparrjpricravre's aTrecrretXa^ ev/caflerovs vTroKptvop,evovs 2O 
eaurow Sitcatov? elvai, 'iva inriKd^wvrai avrov \6yov, wcrre 
TrapaSovvai, avrov rfj ap^fj Kal rf/ e%ov<riq TOV ri 

avrov \e<yovTS &.iSd(TKa\6, o'lSafiev on 2 1 
KOI SiSdcrKeis Kal ov \afj,{3dvi<; irpoawrrov, 

20 Trapa.Typija-avTes'] o.Trox^pr)ffa.vTes D (UTTOX- W) lat.vt go aeth : afterwards 
syr.vt : om syr. vg 

Introd. to O.T. in Greek, pp. 47 f.), the 
word AtKpjcret occurs : di/acrT^a-cc o 
&to<s TOV ovpavov /^acriAetav . . . 
AeTTTwet KCU Xi/</x^cr6 7racrfxs TO,? 
/2acri/\aa? . . . ov rpo-jrov t'Ses ort 
curb opovs kr^Qf] Ai^os ai/ev %eipwv 
Kal kXeirrvvtv TO oo-rpaKov KT\. 
The proper meaning of AiK/zai/ is ' to 
winnow chaff from grain' and then 
derivatively ' to scatter as chaff,' ' to 
make to disappear.' 

20. Lk. has entirely re-written the 
introduction to the question about 
the tribute money. Mk. says that 
" they (i.e. the chief priests and 
scribes) sent to him some of the 
Pharisees and Herodians to entrap 
him." Lk. has (i) made the motive 
of the question explicit : wrrre irapa- 
Sovvai avrov ry &PXU Ka ^ r l) ^ovcrm 
TOV ^ye/j.ovo<s (this is to be com- 
pared with xxiii. 2, where, according 
to Lk., it was specifically alleged 
against Jesus by the Sanhedrin that 
he forbade to give tribute to Caesar) , 
(2) he has suppressed the Pharisees 
and Herodians, and merely says that 
the questioners were suborned spies 
who ' pretended to be righteous.' 
(This was a natural inference from 
the language in v. 21.) The dilemma 
was very plain : if Jesus maintained 
that it was unlawful to pay the 
tribute, he made himself liable to the 

penalties of the Roman government ; 
if he said that the payment was 
lawful, he would alienate popular 
support. It may well be that in fact 
Jesus did forfeit popularity when it 
was realised that he was not prepared 
to accept the position of a temporal 
sovereign, ruling over the theocracy. 
The question addressed to Jesus 
raised what had been the chief 
political issue in Palestine since the 
census of A.D. 6, and remained so 
until the downfall of the Jewish 
state in the war of 65-70. The 
answer of Jesus carries the implica- 
tions (i) that man's relationship to 
God is established in its own right, 
and (2) that this relationship does 
not justify a repudiation of Caesar 
in his own sphere. When the idea 
of a distinction between the spheres 
of God and Caesar was transferred 
from the national Jewish Church to 
the Gentile world, it laid the axe at 
the root of the ancient conception of 
the state. Ranke speaks of these 
words of Jesus as being the most 
important and the most influential 
that he ever spoke. Ranke's judge- 
ment on the saying characterized 
by Wellhausen as ' profane and some- 
what perverse ' stands in notable 
conflict with the spirit of the saying 


22 a\\ eV a\r)0La<; rrjv 6Sbi> rov Oeov 8tSaoveet9' e^evriv 

23 rj/jba? Kaio'api (fropov SovvaL rj ov ; /caravoTj(ra<; 8e avr&v 

24 rrjv Travovpylav elrrev vrpos avrovs Aeigare fjuoi Srjvdpiov 
rlvos e^eu euKOva fcal e7Ti r ypa<j)'ijv ; ol Be elrrav KaL<rapo<$. 

25 o $e ebTrev Trpos avrovs TOLVVV airobore ra Katcrapo9 

26 Kao~api KOI ra rov Oeov T&> dew. /cat OVK la'^vcrav eiru- 
\a(3ea-0ai, TOV prffjuaTOs evavnov rov \aov, /cal 

67rl rfj aTTOKpiaei avrov 

27 n^otre\^o^Te9 Se rives rwv ^aS&ovKaicw, OL \eyovre<; 

28 ava<rra<riv /Jirj elvai, eTrqpwT'rja-av avrov \eyovres AtSa- 

M.c0vcrf)S eypatyev rjfuv, GA'N TINOC ^AeA4>6c Ano9*'Ny 
ryvvaiKa, Kdvi ofroc ATEKNOC $, w/a A^Bh) d AAeAcJ)6c &YTOY 

29 T^N TYNATKA KAI elANACTHCh) CTTep/v\& rep AeAcJ)tp <^YToy. e?TTa 

30 ovv a$e\<froi rjcrav /cal 6 rcpwros \a/3a)v yvvaiKa airedavev 

31 areicvos' /cal o Sevrepos /cal 6 rpiros e\a/3ev avrr)v, w 

23. i<aravo7J(ra<s 8e auraii/ ryv TTOLV- problem with which the conservative 
ovpyLav] Mk. 6 Se etSoj? avrutv rrjv Sadducees were wont to oppose the 
VTroKpio-iv. doctrinal innovations which had been 

24. Aet^are //,oi 8vyi/a/)toi/] Lk. embraced by the Pharisees and had 
omits from Mk. tVa i'Sa> and leaves struck deep roots in the popular 
it to be inferred that the questioners religion. 

brought the denarius (ot Se ijvryi<av TrpocreA^ovres 8e rtj/es TWV *,., ol 

Mk.). He also weakens the vivid Aeyoi/res . . . eTrrypajT^a-av] ForMk. 

question of Mk. rtVos ?) et/<tov a,^ e JT^) /cat ep^ovrai 2aSSovKato6 TT/OOS avrov, 

Kat 77 tTriypafoj ; otrti/es Aeyoucri . . . /cat e7rr]p(t>T<DV. 

26. Kai OTJ/< tcrx^craj/ e7rtA,a/?eo-^a6] 28. AiSao-/caA.e] The Sadducees 

As they had set out to do, v. 20. approach Jesus with ironical courtesy. 

The conclusion is expanded to an- Mwvo-^s e'ypa^ev ?}//JV] Deut. xxv. 

swer the introduction. Mk. simply 5. It is probable that the law of 

/cat ee0av[jiaov CTT avry. Levirate marriage was not practically 

evavriov rov Aaov] Here, as gener- in force in the first century. The 

ally in Lk., the people remain in the question is raised in order to main- 

background of the scene. tain the theological position that the 

27 f. Unlike the preceding ques- law of Moses by implication excluded 

tions the question of the Sadducees the belief in resurrection. 

has no direct bearing on the personal 29. eTrra oSi/ aSeA^ot 7/crav] ' Now 

position of Jesus and his relations there were seven brethren.' The 

with the authorities, Jewish and conjunction ovv is probably never 

Roman. The question raised is of found in the true text of Mk. Here, 

purely religious and theological im- v. 15 supra, vv. 33, 44 infra, and 

portance. ' It may be conjectured elsewhere, Lk. eases the connexion by 

that the question was a stock inserting the conjunction. 


Be Kal ol eTrrd ov KareKiTTov reKva KOL cnreOavov varepov 3 2 

Kal rj yvvrj direOavev. rj yvvrj ovv ev rfj dvacrrdo-ei rivo<$ 33 
avrcov ylverai, yvvt] ; ol yap e^rra ecr%ov avryv yvvatKa. 

Kal elirev avrois 6 'I^troO? Ol viol rov aiwvos rovrov 34 

yafJiovcrLV Kal ya/jiio-Kovrai, ol Be Kara^iwQevre^ rov alwvos 35 

eiceivov rv^elv KOL rrjs dvacrrdo-etos T^9 etc veKpwv ovre 
yajjiovaiv ovre yafjbi^ovrai* ovBe yap diroOavelv en Svvav- 36 
rat, tcra-yyeXoi <ydp elcriv, KOI viol elcnv Oeov TT}? avaardcrews 
viol 6'fT69. on Be eyeipovrai ol ve/cpol Kal M.cova-rj<; 37 

34 TOVTOV] add yevvwvrai KO.L yei'vacm' D ft z i q : add yevvwffi KOLI yevvuvTat a c e 1 

syr(vt.hl-mg) Iren Clem Orig Cypr Priscill Aug ya/u.ovcri KCII. ya/j-iaKovrat. om 
c e ff 2 i 1 q Cypr Aug 

34. In Mk. Jesus begins by up- condition of the angels as requiring 
braiding the Sadducees : ov 810, TOVTO neither sustenance nor marriage cf . pr) etSores ras yyoa^as Enoch xv. 6 foil, (of the fallen 
//,7/Se T>)V Svvapiv TOV Oeov ; Lk. angels) : " But you were formerly 
omits this, as he omits the final spiritual, living the eternal life, and 
rebuke at v. 38. Jesus in Mk. then immortal for all generations of the 
proceeds at once to the conditions of world. And therefore I have not 
the resurrection. In Lk. he begins appointed wives for you; for as for 
with stating positively the conditions the spiritual ones of the heaven, in 
in this world : " The sons of this heaven is their dwelling." 

age" (for this phrase cf. xvi. 8 supra) Kal vioi do-iv Oeov rvys ai/ao-raa-ecos 

" marry and are given in marriage." viol oi/res] This is added by Lk. 

Probably, however, we should read viol TT^S ai/acrracreajs is a Semitism 

here yei/t/wi/rcu /cat yevvuo-i (see crit. analogous to viol rov ouwvos rovrov 

note). This would complete the above. The meaning Kal vioi eicrti/ 

argument, by bringing out the pur- Beov in this connexion is less clear, 

pose of marriage, which is no longer unless it be regarded as an anticipa- 

required in the next world : cn'iSe yap tion of the thought of the next 

dTro^aveiv e'rt ovvavrat. section : the sons of the resurrection 

35. ot 8e Kara^uaOtvTes . . . TT}S live unto God as their father ; syr.sin 
e/< ve/<pwi/] Mk. simply orav ki< ve/<pwi/ omits. 

avuo-Tajo-i. Here, as in xiv. 14, 'the 37. Jesus now takes the offensive, 

resurrection of the just' is alone in and justifies belief in the resurrection 

question. from the common ground of the law. 

36. ovSe yap airoOavelv en ovvav- In Lk. Jesus says that Moses has 
rat] Add. Luc. Cf. v. 34 n. 'indicated' or 'signified' (epyvucrei/) 

icrayyeAot yap eurci/] Mk. aAA* that the dead are raised. This 

curti/ d>s ayyeAoi. The mention of is perhaps felt to be a more ap- 

angels in a dispute with Sadducees propriate manner of adducing an 

will not be accidental, for the belief indirect argument than the direct 

in angels was another part of the appeal in Mk., " Have you not read 

popular faith rejected by the Sad- in the book of Moses, how God said 

ducees. Cf. Acts xxiii. 8. For the to him ? " etc. 


eprivvcrev eVt TT}? ftdrov, &>9 \eyei, KY'PION TON GeoN 'ABp^M 
38 KAI 0eoN 'Ic&dlK KAI Ge6N 'l&KGoB- #609 &e oi>K eaTLV vetcpwv 
3 9 ttXXa %a>VTwv, 7raz>T69 7ap atro3 tfocriv. cnroKpiOevres Se rives 

40 TWZ/ ypafjLfj,a,Te(t)v elirav AfcSaaveaXe, /caXa>9 et7ra9* OVKSTL 

41 7a/o To\fjLQ)i> eirepr^rav avrov ovSev. EiiTrev Se 

u)S Aeyet Kvptov /crA.] 'when he recording the scribe's question as to 

speaks of the Lord as God of Abra- the first commandment in the law, 

ham,' etc. Luke here, as again which Lk. has omitted at this point : 

below, v. 42, substitutes a present KOU Trpoo-eXOuv ets TOJI/ 

(Aeyet) for the Marcan aorist (er^ei/). ctKorxras avruv cruv^To 

Luke's present tense is here a time- 6Vt KaAois direKpiOrj ai'rots KT\. 

less present of what stands written And v. 40 reproduces the last words 

in scripture. Cf. infra, v. 42, and of the omitted paragraph, Mk. xii. 34. 
Acts ii. 25, 34, vii. 48, viii. 34. 41-42. Mk. xii. 35-37. Jesus now 

38. 0ebs Se . . . aWa>i/] This is, himself presses home a question upon 
as Wellh. remarks, the doctrine of his opponents. Does not Scripture 
both 0. and N.T. But the inference prove the Christ to be David's lord, 
which is drawn in the O.T. is that not David's son, since David himself 
'the dead praise not thee, Lord, in the Psalms speaks of the Christ 
neither all they that go down to as his lord 1 The interpretation of 
Sheol.' the question is not easy. It seems 

Travres yap avr<^ wcrii/] This again clear that Jesus wishes to repudiate 

is a Lucan addition. It finds an the conception that the Christ is 

exact parallel in the strongly Hellen- David's son and heir. Perhaps there 

istic 4 Maccabees, where, as here, is an implied contrast of the Messianic 

the Patriarchs are said to be 'alive son of David, who was expected to 

to God': vii. ig ot 7rrTei'oi/Tes on reign at Jerusalem, with the Messianic 

0<=< t o OVK u.Tro9vt]crKov(Tiv, ojcTTrep yap Son of Man, who sits or stands 

oliraTpidp)^air/fj.ii)v 3 Appadfji ) 3 Io-adK, (Acts vii. 56) at the right hand 

'IttKtoyS, aAAa ckriv TW $ea> : xvi. 25 of God in heaven. Ps. ex. was in 

ere Se KGU ravra tSovres ort Sta rov current use as a Messianic text in 

6ebv d-rroOavovTes ojo-tv T( t o #e<u, the primitive Church ; cf. Ac. ii. 34; 

uanrep 'AfSpadp^ KGU 'IcraaK Kal I Cor. xv. 25; Heb. i. 13; I Pet. 

Ia/ao/2, /cat Travres ot Trarptdp^ai. Hi. 22. The suggestion that Jesus 

39. rive? TCOI/ ypafj.fjLaTeuv'] Thus was appealing to Psalm ex. to rebut 
Jesus has vindicated the popular belief an objection that he was not of 
in a future life, which was held by Davidic descent does not commend 
the Pharisees, and it is appropriate itself. The text gives no hint that 
that he should receive commendation such an objection was urged. Lk. 
from some scribes who are present, himself has already insisted on the 
We may compare the scene in Acts fact, generally accepted in the early 
xxiii. 6 f., where Paul the Christian Church (see Ro. i. 3), that Jesus was 
succeeds in enlisting the sympathy son of David. See i. 32, iii. 23! 
of the Pharisees against the Sad- We can hardly suppose that he 
ducees. But the present verse has understood this passage to deny the 
been plainly suggested by the open- fact. He probably took it to mean 
ing words of the Marcan paragraph that the Christ, the son of David, 


Trpbs avrovs n<w9 \eyova~LV rov ^puaTov elvai AavelS 
vlov ; at"TO9 jap AauelS X^yet ev BtySXw ^PaX/nwz/ 4 2 

ETrreN Kypioc rtp ypup MOY K&'eoy GK AeiEicoN MOY 
ewe <N Go) royc ex9poyc coy ynono'AioN TCON rroAcbN coy 43 
AauelS ouz/ avrov rcvpiov KaXel, KOL 7nw9 avrov vlos CCTTLV ; 44 
'A/couoi>T09 e TravTo? TOV Xaov eiTrez/ rot9 /^aOijrai^ 45 
ripocre^ere a-Tro TWZ/ ypafjLfjtarecav TWV 9e\bvTfov TrepiTrarelv 46 
eV crroXat9 /cat <pi\ovvT(0v acrTraa^ov^ ev raw aryopals KCU 

ev rats crvvaycoyai? /cal 
ev T0t9 SeiTTVOL?, ot KarecrOiovo'LV r9 ol/cias TWV ^rjpcov 47 
/cal irpo(f)do'L fiaKpa irpocrev^ovraL' OVTOL Xr/yu-^o^rat 

is entitled to an appellation more Mk. gives ot ypa/z/zareis as the 

honourable than ' son of David.' subject. Lk. perhaps deliberately 

Straek-Billerbeck, iv. I, pp. 452-465 leaves the subject undefined : the 

(Excursus 1 8 on Psalm ex. in Old Jews in general held that the Christ 

Rabbinic Literature), shew that the was son of David. 

Messianic interpretation of. Psalm ex. 42. tv Bt'/3A<<> ^aAyUwv] Lk. is the 

is never found in Rabbinic literature only writer in the N.T. who refers 

until the second half of the third to the Book of Psalms by its title. 

century. Prior to that date Rabbinic Cf. xxiv. 44 ; Ac. i. 20, xiii. 33. 

interpretation generally applied the Mk. makes Jesus lay emphasis on 

Psalm to Abraham. The earliest of the fact that David when he spoke 

these non-Messianic interpretations is was inspired : ev Trvei'/j.a.ri ayiip. On 

that of R. Tshmael, c. A.D. 100-135. the present Aeyet (Mk. enrev) cf. v. 

When the Messianic interpretation 37 supra n. 

begins to appear in Rabbinic litera- 45-xxi. 4. The long scene in the 

ture towards the end of the third Temple now closes with a denuncia- 

century A.D. it is as a new departure tion of the ostentation and pretence 

in exegesis. S.B. argue that the of the scribes, who, while they pray, 

evidence of the N.T., especially of devour the houses of widows, fol- 

this passage (and parallels), may be lowed by the story of the poor 

taken to prove that a Messianic widow who cast two mites into the 

interpretation of the Psalm had been treasury and exceeded the richest 

common ground to Jews and Chris- in her generosity. Both paragraphs 

tians in the first century, and that come from Mk. with merely verbal 

it is reasonable to conjecture that modifications. The juxtaposition of 

anti-Christian polemic led to the later the two paragraphs in Mk. is per- 

predominance in rabbinic Judaism haps due to the reference to 

of a different exegesis. ' widows ' in the denunciation of the 

41. Trpo<5 a-i?Tovj] The pronoun is scribes. 

vague. The assembled multitudes, This denunciation of the scribes 

including all parties, may be sup- taken from Mk. is a shorter counter- 

posed to be included. Mk. e/Xeyei' part to the longer denunciation 

iv T(I) iepM. TTWS Aeyowi] which Lk. introduced above (c. xi.) 


XXI. I Trepucra-oTepov /cpijjba. ' Az/a/3Xe^a9 Se el&ev TOVS 

/3aXXoz/Ta? et? TO <yao(j)v\dKiov TO, Swpa CIVTWV TrXoucrtoy?. 

2 elSev Se riva 'Xypav Trevi^pav ftaXkovaav